Keeping names and addresses, we were quietly told, would enable government planners to do more rigorous studies of social trends.

It is only now that the significance of the ABS's change is spilling out into the press.

For the past 45 years, it has been the ABS's practice to destroy that identifying information as soon as all other information on the census forms is transcribed - first onto magnetic tape, and now into vast digital data banks that allow statisticians to slice and dice at their whim.

In the 2001 census, the government first offered Australians a choice as to whether they would like their name-identified information kept. This year that opt-in system will be a compulsory system. Your name will be kept whether you like it or not.

The risks to privacy are blindingly obvious. The safest way to protect data is to not collect it at all. The second safest way is destroy that data after collection. There is no such thing as 100 per cent safely secured information. We know this from bitter experience. The last decade has seen a constant stream of unauthorised releases of apparently secure private information: the 2015 Ashley Madison hack being just the most embarrassing of these.

The ABS argues that identification information will be stored safely and separately from the rest of the census data, creating a firewall that protects against individual identification. A spokesperson told Radio National last week that the ABS "never has and never will release information that is personally identifiable".

There are a lot of unanswered questions here. But no matter what firewalls the ABS places around access and matching, it is a truism that any data that can be used usefully can also be used illegitimately.

And of course, what are considered legitimate and illegitimate uses of data can change over time. Rules written in 2016 could be changed in 2026. The data collected now might be used in a very different way down the track.

Identification retention could have practical consequences as well. A population that is rightly worried about the security of their information is less likely to answer the census either accurately or at all. Indeed, this has historically been the ABS's big concern with keeping identification. They told a parliamentary committee in 1998 that the reduction in data quality from a reluctance to answer questions truthfully was not worth the trade-off.

A lower quality census would lead to lower quality government statistics across the board. A lot of things hang off the census. Census data guides electoral redistributions, Commonwealth grants, education funding and so on. Risking the integrity of all that in the hope that future data might be marginally more interesting to genealogical researchers and government planners seems like a terrible deal.

Although they profess to have changed their mind on the risk of lower quality data, we can speculate these concerns might be why the ABS announced the new policy in the dead holiday season. The less publicity given to the change, the less likely Australians are going to hear enough about the new census rules to be worried about their privacy.

While the Coalition's support for traditional rights and freedoms has taken a battering over the past few years, overriding the ABS decision would go some way to reclaiming its liberal heritage.

After all, it was a Liberal Treasurer, Billy Snedden, who first mandated the destruction of names and addresses in census forms in 1971 in response to privacy concerns. And Cabinet records show the Fraser government - at the behest of treasurer John Howard - unhesitatingly and immediately rejecting a 1979 proposal by the law reform commission to retain census names and addresses.

The digitisation of absolutely everything has made privacy one of the central problems of the 21st century. If anything, Australians are more aware of the dangers of identity theft and information insecurity than they have been at any time in history.

As the ABS change shows, the debate over warrantless mandatory data retention was just the tip of the iceberg.

It is true that modern governments are data hungry. Planners and regulators want more and more information about the populations they govern.

But to the extent we have an interest in protecting ourselves against government excesses, we have an interest in denying governments carte blanche to collect information. We are not just data points in a planner's spreadsheet. They work for us.

Comments (414)

Comments for this story are closed.

Rat Bag:

15 Mar 2016 6:55:51am

I read your argument and try and understand but is it too late? Nearly every day, credit cards, retail outlets, airlines, car repairers, Medicare, travel agents, hospitals etc are collecting names and addresses. I lost track years ago on how many times I have had to deliver personal data to God knows who.

HPH:

15 Mar 2016 1:45:48pm

Agencies and organizations which are authorised to have access to these databases can collect all the information in less than ten minutes.

Privacy doesn't exist anymore. At every second of our daily life we leave our digital footprint behind. Even if you don't carry an electronic device when you go out for a walk, there are cameras everywhere.

John Coochey:

15 Mar 2016 2:02:25pm

Well the simplest thing with the Census is to not fill it in and say you were away on census night. That is what I do! Even ABS says it does not need this census and most European countries have done away with it because they found them innacurate and out of date by the time they were published. Incidentally you do not need to fill in the Census until you get a Notice of Direction which can only occur if you give ABS your name. Problem solved. ABS has never in any case come up with a valid answer as to why you have to put your name on it anyway, alternatively put a false name on problem solved.

John Coochey:

15 Mar 2016 2:45:24pm

The other thing of course is Australia has the most frequent and intrusive Census in the world now that the US has curtailed its questions and abandoned its long form. Interestingly if you do not fill in the form on line then you can mail it back which is something ABS rejected at the Law Commission inquiry of 1979 which resulted from complaints about the intrusive nature of the 76 census which had 56 questions, the current census has 60. What is also forgotten is the time spent by some 10 million households filling in information which ABS has already stated it does not need and there is no valid use for.

big Tomatoes :

15 Mar 2016 3:58:13pm

John Coochey.

Your are a Hero = NOT.

What are you Hiding?

Happy to use credit cards, airlines, booking agents but at the most "Defensive" option when it comes to the Census. The Census is vital and would not Brag so much and give such spurious arguments in support of your very real agenda of stuffing up the Census as some sort of Public Movement against such Data being acquired and achieved by the ABS.

For your information Super Hero the Australian (Not Yank , Not European) helps this country plan for the future. But if you wish to Deliberately carry on like a Spoilt Brat because it is so easy to do so then you are real Marvel.

John Coochey:

15 Mar 2016 4:38:10pm

OK big tomatos (or big whatever) such ad hominum venem usually means you have lost the argument if not the thread. If you had read the Sydney Morning Herald you would have realised that even ABS says there is no need for a Census every five years and ABS demands data which is useless or does not process. For example overseas visitors have to answer all questions but ABS only processes 3! Gender age and amazingly marital status. Internal ABS working documents show that marital status which was originally used to calculate the breeding population is now useless with (from memory) forty per cent of births being outside "an officially registered union". Why do we have hundreds of thousands more Medicare Cards than people in the Census? Because probably some seven hundred thousand people do not fill it in because it is too intrusive. We have a missing generation of people in their early twenties particularly male (group house dwellers) who are underepresented. As an experiment take take an earlier Census add births take off deaths and allow for net migraation and again you have hundreds of thousand missing. My point remains why spend I think half a billion dollars and maybe at least five billion man hours filling it in?

whadyurekon:

If he wanted to hide anything, he'd hire lawyers and use official methods.

He knows, and we know, that you can't trust anybody with anything online.

To live in today's world, you can't avoid business doing anything they want with what they can trick you out of, but that doesn't mean that your employees should accept the obvious risks that their employers (us) can see.

I want a Royal Commission into why Business can use our data for - anything they want, really.

madi hunt:

15 Mar 2016 5:00:44pm

big Tomatoes, why so antagonistic towards another person's response to ABS census? Me thinks you protests too much... John Coochey is not calling for a revolution but an alternate view and approach. One does not have to condone suggestions of this kind but they add flavour to an otherwise potentially dry debate. What is it that you need others to know?

HS:

Not Anonymous:

The govt statement is true. Your information is stored anonymously BUT your census info is only anonymous while it is encrypted.

Prior to the pending 2016 census, the census forms were NOT destroyed PRIOR to recordinga all of the information on the form including names and addresses.

For example in the 2010 census the large data centres scanned all forms from front to back including the names and addresses.

The names and addresses were then encrypted by the software and all census info stored on American company IBM owned computers.

This is why the govt agency ABS and politicians get say "census information is stored anonymously".

What the agency and politicians are refraining from saying is that while your census data anonymous when encrypted it can be made visible and identifiable using an encryption key.

While your census data is encrypted it is true stored anonymously but when the encryption key is used, your name and address become visible and your census data is connected to you and your associates located on the premises on census night.

For the rest see Edward Snowden revelations on covert surveillance and the Australian and other western "democratic" government covert manipulation.

"Anonymous census data" is the illusion presented to you to keep you compliant.

John Coochey:

HPH:

I don't know why Chris got his undies in a twist over this privacy thing but I suppose he had to write an article for the Drum this week as part of his weekly task at the IPA and keep us amused.

There is no Privacy anymore.

As for the Census, I pick a first name and a second name out of thin air and type it and - voila! ..there is person with a Facebook/twitter-information, comments in forums -all you can learn from- about him or her.

Not Anonymous:

People living in Australia "voters" "payers" need to be concerned and interested in what the government is doing/has done to our "democracy".

I agree with Chris Berg, author of the article.

It is apathy and disinterest which the major parties and the administration machine of government rely on to conduct illegitimate power over your information, your workplace, your business, your medical records.... illegitimate power over you.

Each time you stay silent and compliant you say "uncle" to illegitimate power and the government (major parties) and the machinery let that sit a while before enacting or exercising executive power in the next step.

Edward Snowden has been invited to Australia by thinkinc.org.au during 20-29 May 2016.

HS:

16 Mar 2016 1:45:32am

If you don't fill it in then they will come knocking on your door. If you give false information they will catch up with you one way or another and you will not be pleased. They can cross reference your information with ATO. Your Employer. Your Super. Medicare. Your Bank a/c. Your neighbors. It ain't that simple.

HPH:

15 Mar 2016 2:24:59pm

There is a huge industry built around this in the United States.

Collecting data about their citizens are in the hands of the private sector. The U.S. government has back stepped from this task since GW Bush left office. The reason: Their constitution blah blah.. But whenever the official agencies need this data, they can get it.

The U.S. is also collecting data in other countries.

In Australia, the U.S. agencies know more about Australians than our own government.

Thanks to the privatisation of our Telecom and the introduction of private telcos.

Jebus :

15 Mar 2016 3:58:37pm

Apathy is a huge part of the problem here. We need to all demand such privacy or do something else, and there are many options. We let them do this because nobody wants to care. The fact someone would rather play Xbox or Instagram than care about their basic privacy shows society in general is going into decline.

Anyhow I don't think I've used my name on the last few census forms. Seems like there will be a lot of John Smith names on the next census with phone numbers for a pizza delivery. If everyone did this they could never enforce compulsory anything. Just like if everyone decided not to get a drivers license. A 10 million person protest would be great and it would be quite an effective protest. The cost of enforcement would eventually wear down the system. Power in huge numbers of people, people.

Jerry Attrick:

15 Mar 2016 5:03:47pm

So it's confirmed: paranoia rules much of Australia.Does anyone writing for or reading this page truly believe that, even if they don't join in surveys or give their full details, anything about their life is kept private?If so, those sweet, innocent, unsuspecting people might one day get a terrible shock.

John Coochey:

15 Mar 2016 8:30:11pm

Qute right! Many countries have an anonymous Census and ABS's rationale for not allowing it does not hold any water at all. The post enumeration survey does not tell you how many people were missed or overcounted. It simply makes a guess at how many were accidentally missed. Any advantage of putting names on the census form could be equated by putting initials if in fact that was the inention.

HPH:

who_knew:

15 Mar 2016 8:46:43pm

"Such is life."

We can easily dismiss the concerns of others as silly nonsense with these statements while supporting their cause with our behaviour - how else can we be on the winning side no matter how things pan out?

hatedbythemoderators:

should be working:

15 Mar 2016 9:42:09am

"Flybuys, Woolworths reward card, Paypal, Ebay" I don't use anything like this, they are unnecessary to get through my daily life. As for Taxis - if a taxi asks for my details when I get it, I would get right out again! Also, don't use Uber, which would require details straight up.

Problem solved. The point is that modern conveniences come at a cost, but you don't need them, they are just a convenience.

gjr:

hatedbythemoderators:

15 Mar 2016 10:35:28am

if you phone for a taxi it records the number, next time you call from the same number it tells you "we will send a cab to 25 your Street, if this is not right push button 1"they will also know where you went and wheneftpos card?cookies on your computertoll road ticket?electricity, they know when your peak power useage is Ergo when you are at homeits a loosing battle

reaver:

Demac:

15 Mar 2016 11:30:12am

"Flybuys xWoolworths reward card xPaypal yEbay yTaxis x"

Paypal and ebay have some information about some things I buy, and my shipping address of course. My bank has some visibility of the amounts being charged through Paypal but no details. None of them have any information about my personal beliefs or household composition.

It takes a bit of effort but personally I think it is worth it to try and retain some control over my privacy.

LynH:

15 Mar 2016 3:30:28pm

I get along well on a cash economy, but then my needs are modest, no modern gadgets, minimum info to others. People are sucked into believing lots of things are necessary but I have never believed advertising and propaganda. If I need something I take my saved-up cash and ask for a discount. Life is very full and rewarding. It can be done.

Forrest Gardener:

PWW:

15 Mar 2016 9:48:53am

Simply by using a mobile phone app that tells you, for example, the location of the nearest Tandori restaurant involves giving up a long list of personal privacies - including your current location and your culinary preferences.

It is the price of living in a fully connected world. The alternative is to become like those "doomsday preppers" in the US who live totally off the grid. All payments are in cash and all contact is through a PO box number.

blax5:

15 Mar 2016 10:59:25am

There is credible chatter on the internet about cash being outlawed, with Sweden being on the forefront.

It has been a very longtime coming. We had nightstorage heating in a house in a village in Germany and in about 1974 it was switched to remote, i.e. the electricity supplier switched on our heating when they had capacity, peak or off-peak times.

We can no longer fight the loss of privacy and the full spectrum surveillance which exists. My onlyy criteria is now money, the lifeblood of a retiree. I must not be forced to have financial data of any nature on my own device(s) because that's the weakest link, because I do not understand enough of IT to keep it perfectly secure which does not exist in the first place. Should the NBN force me to have electronic transfer from my device I will have to live without the internet.

Malicious people will be able to kill any kind of political or economic opposition through affecting health data of competitors and oppositionists by making money and assets disappear. A possesionless, homeless person is no longer a threat. If you have experienced abuse of power like I have it is very scary, but maybe we just have to remember what the relatives and firends in East Berlin did, learn to comply except for online transfers.

Fred:

MojoMouse:

15 Mar 2016 1:44:32pm

Fred and Hobbit,

In terms of change, we're mentally biased to seeing the current rate as extending into the future. However, when you look back over the last century, especially the last 3 decades, you see that change happens at an exponential rate.

An example - VHS video stores. Around for decades, then DVDs became the standard. Over the course of 5 years the stores changed to DVDs. Next, the internet and video streaming/downloading etc. DVD stores virtually disappeared overnight.

Another example, look at mobile phone technology. This is in recent history, but note the exponentially lessening time between major technology changes. Fifteen years ago a mobile phone that could take your pulse was unheard of, and if a phone could do this it would have got international media coverage. Now, however, I find my phone can do this while I was browsing some apps.

So, as to cash in the economy, it won't fade away. Rather, I predict that in countries like ours, a tipping point will be reached, then cash transactions will disappear virtually overnight.

Fred:

15 Mar 2016 8:57:25pm

Thanks for explaining at length, and in fairly patronising terms, something that I already knew. Yeah, things change quickly. I get it. My actual post, for goodness' sake, actually concludes with the words "in the short term".

Agaras:

15 Mar 2016 2:48:05pm

I hope you're right Fred, but I don't think it is that far away when it will happen.

Where did the 1c and 2c go?

This is how they will sell it to us. They'll say "Look we took away your 1c, 2c (maybe even 5c) but if you go cashless, you will only pay what marked price is, 99c! Isn't that better, than paying extra when you use cash?"

The marketing Angels will make this sounds like a wonderful thing!

I remember how the ATM machines where sold as such a wondrous thing to my life. But now the lesson is, don't use the wrong ATM or we'll charge you $2 to $4 a transaction, or just a percentage of the item you purchased, if you don't spend enough, or using a card instead of cash!

Chamo:

15 Mar 2016 9:39:18pm

You are correct about the 47% (around that) but that 47% of transactions is about to be swallowed up by the bank's insistence on a cashless society, that is and has been their aim for the past 30 years. So far it has reached around 60% of all transactions and the year of the RFID is almost upon us and will be welcomed by all governments and world corporations. Their intentions are clear that unless you have this "chip" you will not be able to buy, sell, work, drive, register etc etc. They have already started this drive for complete control and when the cash disappears (which it definitely will) we will only be able to barter until they find a way to prevent that as well!!!

DannyS:

15 Mar 2016 6:38:58pm

blax5,

I'd love to know what your definition of "credible chatter on the internet" is.

I have seen proposals by various international policing agencies pushing for high denomination notes to be abandoned and to not be regarded as legal tender in the not too distant future. The USD100 and the EURO500 for example. Supposedly to make it more difficult for drug persons and terrorists to send smallish bundles of cash worth a lot in total and forcing them to abandon the idea of sending cash anywhere.

It's easy enough to pack USD2 million into your largish suitcase, but there are already some drawbacks. The USD100 note is the most widely counterfeited note in history and there are some pretty good fakes out there. When I was in the banking industry there were import/export clients who wanted loads of USD100 notes, but only sequentially numbered notes. Far less chance that they'd be fake, coming from a bank.

Nobody wants to send fake USD100 notes to give to the customs officials in places like Vladivostok. Your container will stay permanently on the docks and your 'guys' get sprayed with a burst from an AK47.

p.s., if anyone out there has a stash of oldish USD100 notes, you can tell if they are fake by using a pin to dislodge the small blue and red flecks embedded in the note. If they're real, you can lift off these tiny little threads. If not, sorry......

overit:

15 Mar 2016 11:41:34pm

Swedens planning to eradicate cash in 5 yrs.its on Zerohedge and plenty of other sites. the bullsh*t here re removing 100$ notes die to oldies stashing em under beds or criminal use is the beginning of the media/bankster psyop hereif everythings digital then everything is tracked /taxed..and the banks can simply wipe your accounts to "bail in" when they turn turtleie as the Greeks found out.

chalkie:

"The aggregation of that information is a powerful tool in the wrong hands."

Too true - pity this information has for some time already been in the wrong hands: big business.

Berg is upset that the government might have this information in a collated form; as a paid apologist for big business and the rich he is upset that some of the rich will have their information spilt.

Indeed, we should have tax returns public documents, and thus available for Freedom of Information requests. This would mean, like Finland, Norway and Sweden, you can find out what % tax your neighbours, boss or anyone for that matter is paying.

If one of the assumptions of a capitalist system is perfect knowledge, all contracts should also be published or subsequently unenforceable. Imagine the shady deals that would come to light then.

Wining Pom:

15 Mar 2016 9:20:33am

I agree. With 7 billion people on the planet and all kinds of electronic recording and cameras, GPS on phones and teams of people looking how to make a dollar from all that info, well, just don't do anything which can be used by others to gain an advantage over you.

On the bright side, a lot of people are rescued from trouble because of that technology.

eljay:

15 Mar 2016 12:10:28pm

as a wise old Jedi once said------- the Paranoia is strong in this one

I'm fairly certain that the government isn't all that interested in all those that whine away their days on blogs such as these... after all they know where you are ...... scratching away on your computer getting your daily dose of angst off your chest

ingenuous:

15 Mar 2016 1:47:39pm

eljay, you blithely dismiss objections to mass surveillance as "paranoia" and yet give no justification apart from a "lack of interest" in most people.

Sure, the government has no particular interest in people who are not pushing back. But, if you are politically active, then what? And don't assume a well mannered PM such as Turnbull. Assume it's Cori Bernardi. Or Donald Trump. Do you think President Trump would use the existing USA mass surveillance against his political enemies? If not then please explain your awesomely optimistic world view so that I may also have a puff of it.

Mass government surveillance is a tool for oppression and that's about the end of it. If it has any positive usage then it's hard to spot. It is literally disgusting that we have bipartisan support for it here.

Very worried:

Alpo:

15 Mar 2016 9:10:18pm

Are the ALA those who each time they get sick they simply stay in bed, looking to the ceiling and hoping for a miracle? Surely they don't like Government intrusion into their lives via a public hospital.

Tom1:

NotBlindLikeOthers:

15 Mar 2016 1:23:25pm

But can they also access the names and addresses of anyone that was visiting you that night? Can they also access the names, ages, occupation, salary, medical history etc. of every one that was at your residence? ALL this information can be used against you and/or for someone else's benefit. With just a fraction of this information someone can make your life hell, imagine what they could do if they knew everything about you. People cause harm or stress for others simply because they can, because it gives them pleasure knowing they have made someone else miserable.

As the reporter states, the no one can guarantee 100% data security. I have been in the computer industry for 40 years and I know first hand that any system can (and eventually will) be cracked or worse laws are changed to allow the access to this data . After all what is the point in collecting in the first place ?

So because it is "too late" we should just sit back and give in ? Why not use that sort of argument in other areas of your life ? For example: One day your going to die so why not just give in and kill yourself now ? Does not make much sense does it?

Dove:

15 Mar 2016 2:16:50pm

We're told the census data helps plan where to build schools and hospitals. But they're not building any. That this is what will be used to plan public transport. Once again, none of that. That it will aid forecasting commuting, traffic and roads. Again, none, unless they're private toll roads/tunnels/bridges.

The ABS collects the data that is already available in multiple locations because it has few other reasons to exist. And it has always done so. And now this fetish about religion, in a secular society. The government has no place in religion and religion has no place in government. People must remain at liberty to worship as they will and people must be constrained from using government to make religion compulsory

big Tomatoes :

15 Mar 2016 3:51:06pm

Berg

I think and very well reasonably so that it is you and your ilk are "Freaking Out" more about the disclosure of the Wealthy and maybe even of some of the wealthy elites assets and whom these wealthy elitists are out more in the public domain than any contrived sense of Privacy that you pretend is the real issue.

Yes credit cards and a lot of other forms of disclosure about persons identity not to mention shopping and consumer habits but I have noticed a very 'Distinct" "Absence" of "Concern" about these intrusions into the general publics Privacy disclosure.

Is it because the ones that gather and are privy to this form of Data Collection and Information on the Whole benefit those of the Elite Wealthy Classes either Directly or Indirectly.

I find your Confected Outrage merely a smokescreen to try and convince us that if everyday citizens can somehow (through Freedom of Information Process and the like) can access such information about the Elitist Wealthy types that it is not in the Interests (Best or Otherwise ) od these persons for such information to find its way into the Public Domain.

So to your Berg and your Ilk . What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Blzbob:

Chrisentiae Saint-Piaf:

15 Mar 2016 6:56:45am

No privacy, no information. Easy.

It isn't democracy when citizens fear their Government, it is tyranny.

The Government is known as a habitual liar and seeking harm to those it thinks it can bully, while being in the pockets of the rich who pay little to no tax and lust after every luxury and perversion with seemingly impunity, and this includes the do-evil Churches.

Using threats and violence against citizens who fail to comply makes this a Government unworthy to govern.

The LNP are nothing more than a mouth piece for the indulgent rich and those aspiring to become so, but never will. Lies and deceptions.

Democracy...:

Democracy assumes that the majority of people are educated enough and self actualising enough to elect representatives that will do the right thing.

The mob unfortunately shows that it is not prepared for these elected representatives to do what is necessary even if it causes some discomfort, so they vote for popular people, or for those who they perceive will make their lives better, not necessarily the lives of everyone.

So democracy is about elected representatives doing the popular thing to keep the mob happy and engaged enough so that they don't rise up and do something.

For democracy to work we need to have a sense of community, where people are prepared to look out for their neighbour, to look out and help a stranger in need, to be prepared to actually put the needs of others before our own personal need (or greed) when it is the right thing to do. Then and only then does democracy work well.

Winston Churchill once quoted an unknown professor:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.?"

I think if we focus on community, then democracy has a chance, otherwise we are just handing over power to those hungry for it with the blessing of the mob.

Herkimer Snerd:

15 Mar 2016 10:29:51am

By the way, you are really grasping at straws with that comparison, and you know it. Are you one of those deluded people that thinks you may get rich one day, and Liberal policies will actually benefit you? Hahahahaha. Priceless.

blax5:

SillyMe:

Or in respect to fixing the senate voting processes (and the funding from the public purse for electoral candidates) so that major partiy candidates gain a huge advantage over candidates generally.

I suggest we put on every ballot paper a box for 'the unknown candidate' that any voter can record a preference for - thus showing their opinion of the named candidates while voting formally.

If the 'unknown candidate' is elected, then a council of about 40 electors of that electorate would be formed by random draw from the roll to advise one of their number drawn from among them by ballot who would be the 'member' in the parliament. That 'member' might be re-ballotted from the council members every three months or so.

Felix:

Agaras:

But they will have you're name now, that they can legally access and publish, should the information be to outlandish to them. "All hail to the Dictators of the future of Australia!"

Australia today, won't be interested in this data. Australia in 20 years time, just might be. And that is the problem. My children suddenly become a problem because of what I have said. This collection of data is so unobtrusive, it is scary, but once they know your history, religion, and birth name.

Is 1938 so quickly forgotten, this is more like the Nazi rules than an Australia government agency, I think this even beats Trump outrages vocabulary!

Felix:

History Repeats:

15 Mar 2016 9:16:03pm

People forget that Hitler was voted in before he seized power. Then used that power to control his population through populist policy, propaganda & pandering to the economic & social elites. Sound familiar?It was only months ago people were comparing Abbotts policies to dictatorships. I'm concerned about the future, the Australia Card was howled down because of "Big Brother" control fear, only to be replaced by Howard as the Medicare Card number.It is so easy these days to link up information in data banks, and is done regularly. If the police or medical people can access what is available now, who knows what ASIO, ASIS,etc can find, let alone anyone with not so honourable intentions (foreign governments, etc, etc)I have young children and I have grave reservations about giving out private information that has the capacity to injure them or their future.

Union Man:

15 Mar 2016 8:45:37am

"I don't usually find myself agreeing with the IPA but I have to on this issue."

Don't feel too uncomfortable about that. The more compelling the argument, the easier it is to agree with it. Chris Berg is at his best when he writes about privacy matters because, implicit to his argument, is the acknowledgement that human weakness (eg greed, incompetence, irrationality, etc) affects behaviour. [It seems to me that he's much less willing to do this when considering the actions of private economic agents (ie business people and consumers).]

I wonder though if privacy is a lost cause. I'm appalled at what information about themselves people make freely available on social media. Maybe that's why the ABS can make such relatively bold move - For many people, the potential breaches of privacy would not be much greater than the personal information already published in the public domain.

Forrest Gardener:

15 Mar 2016 10:15:43am

UM, a while back the key issue with data privacy was an asserted right of a person to be able to find out what data an organisation was holding, a right to have errors in data corrected and control over who had access to the data.

This seems to have died off. The more common scenario these days is where organisations refuse to tell you what information they have about you for privacy reasons.

Union Man:

spacey 101:

15 Mar 2016 6:21:17pm

I recently have tried to become as anonymous as possibly online.

I've read article after article and to say it's confusing is an understatement.

You can install 'abc' to your browser but be aware that it will make many web pages crash. It should also be noted that installing 'abc' only works about 25% of the time and you'll also need to us TORs and VPNs which also a problem because they use so much of your CPUs processing power that loading your banking page will take about 5 minutes. Then you scroll to the comments and some hacker is stating that they hacked 'abc' months ago and that's it's worthless.

Makes you feel like giving up. Just take the keys to my house and my wallet, I can't protect them.

anote:

15 Mar 2016 10:03:36am

Before being so generous to the IPA I think you should consider the extent we have an interest in protecting ourselves against private excesses in collecting and using (abusing) our private information.

Ron of the valley:

Beachcomber:

15 Mar 2016 12:30:54pm

So "Mike", as an employee of, or merely a shill for, the ABS, it must be dawning on you that maybe people just do not like this proposal. It should also have dawned on you that enforcing that section of the Act would be very difficult without having the timeline of previous answers to census questions available for comparison. Which may be one of the reasons to retain identification. GIGO applies of course so what are you going to do: count all the left-handed JEDI masters of Polynesian descent born in Birmingham and send them all fines for non-compliance? Good luck, you'll need it.

Chris L:

Mike:

15 Mar 2016 10:53:18am

Filling in the census is compulsory. Failure to complete it is an offence that can result in a fine of $180. The only question that isn't compulsory is the one about religion. Providing false or misleading information on a census is also an offence - the fine is $1800.

Dove:

15 Mar 2016 11:23:29am

That might be true, but no-one from the ABS is in any position to correct my statements regarding sexuality, religion, education and what-not. It's all a big booga booga campaign to scare people into yielding their privacy

Michael:

Filz:

15 Mar 2016 1:46:57pm

Completion of the census form might be compulsory, but we all have a choice of remedies. For some, it's to leave the census form blank and then present it in a sealed envelope to the collector. Another is to fill in the form with erroneous information. Suddenly, the government might find that there are 20,342 people with names like "Sebastian Weetabix" or "Neddy Seagoon". Or you could simply be out of the country on census night - put's a new meaning on "If you don't like it, leave."

ingenuous:

15 Mar 2016 2:00:11pm

Mike, there's at least a modest chance you have a connection to the ABS. If you do I hope you convey the overwhelmingly negative reaction seen here up the line to the top.

There are people here who, because of their political persuasion, would not agree with me if I claimed the sky was blue. But they are against mandatory collection of identifying information with census data just as I am.

It crosses the political spectrum. We are against this idea and at least some are willing to pollute the data just to avoid it.

Trust is easily lost. I think the ABS has flushed theirs down the toilet in a stroke of the pen.

ram:

the yank:

15 Mar 2016 7:36:36am

Whether I like it or not eh? The way of the brave new world. Well I don't like it and I suspect many others will not like it. And I suspect the information they will be receiving won't be quite as truthful as in the past.We now fear our government as much as we do the 'bad guys'.

lilly:

15 Mar 2016 8:51:01am

I'll tell you one group who will like it: foreign governments. We have heard frequently in the news of the activities of the Chinese Government in relation to hacking. They recently had success with getting into the Bureau of Meteorology and they've no doubt had a crack at other government department however the incidents will have been hushed up. I expect they are rubbing their hands in glee at this latest news. Never before has the job of a foreign spy been less risky. Rather than placing boots on the ground in harms way, they can do a huge quantity of the groundwork before an agent even boards a plane armed with their fake passport. With data retention, they have access to information about where every individual has been, who they've called, what websites they've looked at and so on for the past two years. With the census data, they will have access to yet more personal information. They will know precisely who to target, who may be susceptible to black mail, what to blackmail them with etc...

Of course the government will tell you that they take data security very seriously (a standard line thrown out to the media) however this is only to the extent that is within the budgetary measures allowed. This money would be insignificant compared to the amount of money foreign governments would spend trying to overcome them. Somewhere in Beijing, there is almost certainly a rather non-descript multi-storey building that is packed to the rafters with supercomputers whose only job is to decrypt encrypted data collected from foreign sources.

I'd like to see a cost benefit analysis of the benefit this data provides the community compared to the costs of storing it, securing it and having it stolen.

I don't deny that governments need collect information in order to make planning decisions etc... however I suspect that they are collecting far more than they need just because they are able to. In essence, they've gotten greedy.

blerter:

15 Mar 2016 12:04:33pm

Hi lilyGood post.FYI, ethics committees routinely do this when deciding who can have access to health data - what is the risk of using the data, versus the risk of not improving health care?The main risk is people getting upset because some boffin has a de-identified version of their data somewhere.I can tell you that the decisions are driven by paranoia within risk-adverse government departments rather than what is likely to be best for the health of Australians.That being said, I'm not sure why ABS requires names...It would be much easier (and the data much cleaner) if foreign governments just mined Facebook.PS Hello Obama

NotBlindLikeOthers:

15 Mar 2016 1:52:25pm

Excellent points but our "allies" can be included in that group.Years ago the US NSA admitted to aiding Boeing in getting a multi billion dollar contract over their rivals in Europe (BA I think it was may have been Airbus) by intercepting closed bids and passing the information on. The US security sector show no remorse in using information against their own people, imagine how much restraint they would have with our information. Remember our government has an obligation to share information with them for "national security" reasons - that alone can and has been used to justify a lot that would otherwise be classed as illegal or even as a war crime.

I will not be filling out any more census form accurately, I will put as much false information in it as I can. I will happily pay the $1800 fine if they detect it and decide to prosecute, which I doubt they would. It would cost them a LOT more to prove that I was lying. Imagine the cost of them just investigating the returns that were obviously false ? The government would go bankrupt if it had to verify every single piece of in formation supplied by the census.

lilly:

15 Mar 2016 3:32:26pm

Your example regarding the NSA is an interesting one. You may recall that our government got caught with its pants down when it was discovered that they'd employed ASIS agents to bug the East Timorese cabinet rooms so they could aid Woodside Petroleum when performing commercial negotiations over the lucrative Sunrise Oil fields. I'm guessing that such operations may be quite common but never confirmed or denied as it comes under the domain of national security.

One question that was never asked was how a company can secure the help of the government in order to obtain this service? Is it offered free of charge to all companies or do you need to be a major political donor in order to access it? I'm guessing probably the latter. It is common knowledge that political parties have multiple satellite institutions available through which large political donations can be made anonymously - in criminal parlance, this is known as money laundering. I'm guessing that if several million dollars were deposited in one of these institutions, all sorts of doors would open up in Canberra that were previously firmly shut.

memory like a goldfish:

15 Mar 2016 6:48:26pm

Hi lillyThe govt would have a very strong interest in things such as the Sunrise issue - i.e. the not so small matter of tax (in the form of rent/royalties). For oil and gas projects offshore the Aust mainland the royalties go to the fed govt, whereas for mining projects on land the royalties go to the Crown (i.e. the State govt).Not sure it is so much to do with political donations, rather than government revenue.

Felix:

15 Mar 2016 10:51:26am

From the ABS website:

The Census and Statistics Act 1905, which authorises the Census, also provides for the compulsory completion of the form. If an individual doesn't answer the questions on the Census form, the Australian Statistician has the authority to direct them to complete the form, with the legal obligation to comply. The Census and Statistics Act 1905 provides for penalties of up to $110 per day for people convicted of failing to complete and return a form when directed to do so.

EricH:

The legal obligation is to provide answers to the questions and also with the implication your answers will be truthful.

Unless you are blatant about it, for example, giving your name as Mickey Mouse, the Census collector probably won't notice any odd answers when they pick up the form and give it a quick check.

If this year's form is available online (not sure if it is) you could probably get away with saying anything you like as checks would be much more random.

It's a bit like the ballot box - you just need to go through the motions of complying.

As one who worked for a little while at the ABS specifically for a Census, I don't think we have anything to fear from the ABS itself as I believe it is a highly ethical organisation.

In the past, we have had to provide our name and address, including details of anyone else who stayed in the house on Census night. While the ABS kept the data, excluding names and addresses, it then destroyed the forms. This was despite regular calls from genealogical groups who argued all the Census information, including names, was vital in tracing family histories. The ABS's response was that the cost of storing and securing the forms would present a massive problem for a relatively limited benefit.

The real problem though is how readily governments can, today, LEGALLY get hold of personal information and connect it to individuals; not just from the ABS, but from other public bodies, State and Territory as well as Federal. Further, I don't think we really know how easily information can be obtained from private sources as well - all on the grounds of national security.

If we as a society are prepared to go along quietly with these invasions of our privacy we can't then complain if we feel violated.

Mike:

Reza's Ghost:

15 Mar 2016 3:21:14pm

It is also an offence to "Recklessly" provide accurate information or information that could be used to benefit terrorists. The public have no way of knowing how this information will be used in the future or by whom.

eljay:

15 Mar 2016 12:31:58pm

Yank that is a complete surprise, that you don't like it

I am drawn to ask, do you like anything about this country. from reading your posts I sometimes doubt you do, surely you have to like that we all can whine and prattle on about any subject with little or no core knowledge of the subject.

with the only risk being an abrupt rebuke by some other desk bound keyboard warrior naturally on this forum these all have to met the austere formal rulings the omnipotent "Moderator"

I think I am glad our visions of a "Brave New World" differ greatly .............. I work with "real" bad guys so no I don't fear the government

the yank:

15 Mar 2016 4:25:32pm

"I am drawn to ask, do you like anything about this country" ... why do you ask? The last time I looked Australia was still a democracy. And under such a system we were allowed to voice an opinion. Or has that right also been taken away?

Freedom of speech was one of those things we studied about quite a bit when I was young so I think I am reasonably grounded in the concept. Maybe you should do a search on Google to find out what it actually means.

the yank:

15 Mar 2016 4:54:22pm

I'll try yet again ... there are two very good reasons to be fearful of as government that wants more personal information about their citizens.

First off governments are made up of people. People being people misuse their authority. It doesn't matter which side of politics you are on, right or left or somewhere in the middle. The question should be asked why does the government want more information. I am not satisfied with their reasons, so I am against the idea.

Second, hackers seem to have the ability to break into governments and steal whatever info they like. Would you like your personal information to be accessed by others? Identify thief seems to be a big thing now a days. Think hard and long about what info a government ... any government wants to collect.

Ravensclaw:

15 Mar 2016 7:46:34am

I am also worried how someone's private census answers could end up in the public domain. So be careful of your answers. But I don't think this is the worst of our privacy problems, as the following examples show.

We have a Sydney University Professor forced to resign because of an Obama joke he sent a mate via his personal email but sent on a work computer. No instances of actual racism to students or colleagues was used to pressure the resignation, or to demonstrate any actual racism by the professor. The hacker who violated his privacy to my knowledge was not caught let alone sanctioned.

We have a Sydney footballer illegally videotaped while behaving unruly at a private party. The video was sent to the media an used by segments of the media to try to force him into retirement. The person that violated the footballer's privacy was then protected by his/her contact in the media and has still not been identified.

whogoesthere:

15 Mar 2016 9:39:02am

good points.

Also, I can't really remember what's in the census. Is there anything in there that the Government wouldn't know anyway ?. The ATO knows all about our money, should I care if the Governemnt knows I'm an atheist ?. They could find that out from my facebook page !.

PWW:

15 Mar 2016 10:04:34am

In both of the examples you quoted, the individuals violated a clear code of conduct. Every time I log onto a computer at a library or university, for example, I receive a clear warning about the appropriate use of the technology that has been provided for my use.

It seems that what you are really arguing here is that the whistleblower is the "criminal" and the professor and footballer are the victims. In both cases wrong-doing was exposed - should that have been ignored?

lilly:

15 Mar 2016 12:09:16pm

From the perspective of the law it would be ignored as the evidence had been obtained via illegal means.

In the court of public opinion, all evidence is admissible irrespective of how it was obtained. The result is that two minor acts of folly (something to which we are all susceptible) have been blown out of all proportion and these people have incurred damages far in excess of the consequences of their actions.

I suspect you may feel differently if it were your career that was destroyed because somebody, for example, published compromising photos or video that you didn't know had been taken from a party that you had attended and all of a sudden your name had been turned to mud across the nation's newspapers and websites.

Jade:

15 Mar 2016 1:59:57pm

I might, but then its unlikely as I don't sexually assault women, and I don't send inappropriately racist jokes using work emails. The legality or lack thereof of the video of Mitchell Pearce is certainly not clear cut.

PWW:

15 Mar 2016 6:57:27pm

I agree, the morality and motives of the individual who posted the video can be questioned. But that does not detract from the fact the the footballer has a "past history" and was, as far as I understand it, on a "good behaviour" contract from his employer. By acting as he did he broke the terms of that "contract".

The fact that it was at a private party and not in a public place makes no difference. If a drug addict is out on parole under an order not to touch drugs, does it make a difference if he breaks that condition at a private party amongst "friends"? If it had been the word of the witnesses present at the private party instead of a video would you have argued that their word should carry no weight because it might ruin the future career of the player?

If I carried on in that manner at a private party and it was exposed, I would be extremely embarrassed. If I held a job or a position in society where people looked up to me as a role model, should I be allowed to continue in that role? Do we want football players like that as role models in our society?

mike j:

PWW:

15 Mar 2016 6:45:37pm

But, if as the original post by Ravenclaw stated, the email was posted from his work computer then the employer has every right to enforce their rules and, if necessary, dismiss an employee for transgressing those rules - even if the offense is deemed by some to be trivial.

dave frasca:

MD:

15 Mar 2016 11:07:10am

Can't help thinking that margin of error would probably more than encompass conscientious objectors. There were many even before this sneaking erosion that Chris Berg is reporting. This government used to say that bureaucracy is the actual incarnation of big, bad government and an overweening imposition on the population as if it was a bad thing...Those were the days, eh? Mind you, I'd be speechless if you were offered expansive public housing to accommodate your copious offspring....

x:

mike j:

15 Mar 2016 5:10:01pm

x:

Full credit for using the gender agnostic 'spine up' rather than the sexist but far more common (and admittedly better-sounding) 'man up'. I would even characterise it as groundbreaking. Colour me impressed.

Perhaps the breeze I'm feeling is the possibility that men will finally have access to the PC social justice rules that women have enjoyed for the last two decades.

Belt up, girls. If the grief you gave us was any indication, it's going to be a rough ride.

Big M:

mike j:

15 Mar 2016 2:25:05pm

They decide what is the 'correct' information, anyway.

In 2001, more than 70,000 people (0.37%) declared themselves members of the Jedi order. Rather than celebrating this burgeoning Australian religion, the ABS called those 70k people liars and threatened them with legal action.

So they ask you personal questions which you are obliged to answer, yet they get to decide whether your answers are acceptable.

Jess:

anurse:

15 Mar 2016 6:47:04pm

So, for purposes of census, only religions that are recognised as per the Marriage act are acceptable? Than seems a bit discriminatory-we have freedom to practice religion, so long as it is a denomination with marrying rights? I've just now converted to "Marriages N More" a denomination of civil marriage celebrants.

MD:

15 Mar 2016 8:17:16pm

In NZ they've just permitted officials of the church of the flying spaghetti monster to perform as marriage celebrants. This country's officialdom takes itself so utterly, utterly, absolutely humourlessly, seriously. They've obviously convinced themselves that the world will implode without their ministrations. It's just a damn shame that their "ministrations" aren't actually useful.

Jess:

15 Mar 2016 10:25:23pm

There are only 14 recogised world religions and virtually all religions are a subgroup of one of these. There is a process for registering a religion in Australia (mainly tax reasons) and the pastafarians have not yet gone through that in Australia.

Same for NZ the marriage celebrant can marry people in the religous ceremony of the pastafarians because they went through the process to be recoginised

Caroline:

15 Mar 2016 7:59:54am

Well it's obviously isn't is? if they insist of not deleting name and address then perhaps many Australian will insist on not completing the census properly or leaving questions blank....not hard to imagine its is what most will do if they want to feel more secure. Not a sensible change

Shaun:

15 Mar 2016 8:07:28am

Give me the option to trust the ABS and I might check OK with respect to them identifying my data.

Force me to trust the ABS and I'll give you total garbage as a response. There are too many data breaches, too many tax frauds, identity thefts and other scams for me to be keen on being forced, yet again, to disclose more information

philT:

15 Mar 2016 8:09:30am

the UK has kept all records - physical and digital - for many, many years. in all that time there has been no privacy breaches. in the 60s they put a 100 year caveat on the specific information. so, a census in 1969 would be able to be accessed in full in 2069. the process the ABS is suggesting is even more stringent than the one in the UK.

NotBlindLikeOthers:

15 Mar 2016 2:04:38pm

No breaches that you know of. Like all organizations, they would do almost anything to cover up a breach of security because if it was publicized it would encourage others to try to breach them as well.

Jess:

Alpo:

15 Mar 2016 8:13:53am

There is valuable information in the following up of an individual over time. This can show population trends at a very detailed scale. To solve the issue of privacy, just assign a number to each individual, then destroy the link between number and name, and use the unique number from then on.

reaver:

15 Mar 2016 11:07:43am

Valuable to whom, Alpo, and valuable why? Who does it advantage to have the government involved in the "following up of an individual over time"? Knowledge is power because it can be used to gain an advantage that would not otherwise be gain so to whose advantage would this information be used? I seriously doubt that the answer would be "The person whose information is being collected."

blerter:

15 Mar 2016 12:08:34pm

The better the census data, the better planning (government and business) and healthcare etc...As people are now more mobile, maybe some tracking can make the data even more useful.Why not, they have my metadata anyway, and who knows what is happening with Windows 10.PS Hi Obama

Nothing To See Here:

15 Mar 2016 2:20:04pm

Windows 10 is sending data about how you use your computer.Browsing habits and destinations/webpages.Which browser you use.Programs you use and how you use them.NOT supposed to have personal identifiers in the data ... but you never know.

Apple " I " products report home to Apple HQ about your online activities. [ they can disable your Iphone .... anytime ]Mobile phones send your location to the Service Provider/ local phone tower... every 30 minutes. [ Triangulation between phone towers in an area locates your device to within 10 metres ]Because all metadata is being retained you can be tracked . [ where you go and what time and how long you were there ]

Leroy:

Bulldust:

And the individual forgets his/her number by the next Census... then what? The name & address are either kept or not. The only way to keep it securely is to use a very secure system.

As someone how uses stats a lot, it seems intuitively obvious the data will degrade when the anonymity is removed. But then the ABS is quite comfortable with iffy stats... unemployment data anyone? They admitted themselves that the data was sketchy (using my personal technical term there for clarity).

Filz:

15 Mar 2016 2:05:18pm

All of gthe information required in a census form, with the exceptions of an individual's income (unless on government benefits, in which case the government already has that information), sexual proclivity or religion, is generally available on the internet. If the government tells you that the census is for future planning, it's probably code for who gets arrested next and charged with sedition.

nugget:

al:

15 Mar 2016 8:21:23am

As the Treasury faces financial shortfalls, the ABS could make a lot of money if it sold all of our information to online marketers and other collectors of this information. As a matter of principal, I will not complete this year's census, nor any further ones, until they revert to the anonymous collection of data. Are you listening big brother.

sdrawkcaB:

Not filling in the form comes with a penalty as does providing incorrect data.

In practice however, its awfully hard to verify your answers if they are 'in bounds'.For example, in the past I may have made some mistakes concerning religion, income, and educational attainment.

Further is we were once subject to a monthly ABS survey. We stated we did not want to do it but were given the 'or else' ultimatum. We wrote down our initial answers and repeated them every time. After 4 months the ABS employee commented how our answers are always exactly the same and mentioned something about a fine.

She kept ringing, we kept reading from our prepared sheet, and there was no fine. I would say they just binned our data but kept ringing becuase they cannot be seen to back down.

Felix:

15 Mar 2016 10:53:14am

The Census and Statistics Act 1905, which authorises the Census, also provides for the compulsory completion of the form. If an individual doesn't answer the questions on the Census form, the Australian Statistician has the authority to direct them to complete the form, with the legal obligation to comply. The Census and Statistics Act 1905 provides for penalties of up to $110 per day for people convicted of failing to complete and return a form when directed to do so.

Lightfoot:

15 Mar 2016 1:52:49pm

I didn't even fill in or return the census form last time round - too busy building the new house.No fines. No demanding letters. The joys of living out in the sticks!Have never put my real name on one.Have never ever given correct info. (tip - always say more people live at your house than do. That means inflated figures for rural areas = more desperately needed government funding)Don't let government scaremongering dictate how you live. Always put them to the test. You'll be surprised how much you'll get away with.

morestone:

sdrawkcaB:

15 Mar 2016 10:50:24am

Corporations are not the same and can be combatted.

For example:I do not own an phone so there is a massive opportunity for them lost.I only watch TV on chase play so I do not see advertising at anything other then 16 times speed.I read or do hobbies rather then 'be entertained' so my exposure to embedded advertising is low.Junk mail goes from the mail box straight to the bin.

In general they have wedded themselves to government and increasingly get guaranteed income for servicing our daily living. In contrast, they have seen to dramatic reductions in my income so I draw less on the services they would have assumed me to use. So for corporations - I do not have the money and do not consume their propaganda.

Government, on the other hand, is increasingly restricting my freedom. If I do not comply then they send out men in costumes (police) and use force to get their way. I can't do much about government other then vote for the opposition as standard practice. Further to government is Verrender's article on bludgers yesterday where we saw contributors line up to justify why we need even more claustrophobic government compliance in our lives - government has seconded citizens to be its agent for meddling and interference and it only gets worse from here.

I await the day for a quarterly BAS style census with documented proof of inputs where the ABS takes on an ATO level of militancy and litigation activity...all in the name of 'health and safety'.

hatedbythemoderators:

15 Mar 2016 8:31:46am

I have not completed a census in 30 yearsThe "Data" generated is meaningless and only used for bad thingsWhen they come to collect your form tell them you were staying at friends place at did the census there

hatedbythemoderators:

EricH:

15 Mar 2016 1:44:49pm

Fine, if you don't mind breaking the law. Personally, I would want an issue much more significant (such as the wider impact of our recent security legislation) before I were to consider doing so. For example, as a journalist, I would hate to suffer the punishment, but I would have and still would be, willing to go to jail rather than reveal my sources.

And I say "more significant", because in reality, we have already allowed governments to gain much more information than just our names and addresses

Gratuitous Adviser:

I am a good guy and really have little fear of my information being stored and with the advent of computers, the collection of all this information is inevitable anyway.

My bigger concern is of those walking on the shady side making hypocritical crying noises about privacy when all they want to protect is their organisations secrets, like sources of funding.

Some gratuitous advice for the great unwashed. When looking at surveys, modelling and opinion pieces, look first for the vested interest. The PwC one yesterday on the gay marriage plebiscite was a classic example.

should be working:

15 Mar 2016 10:17:26am

The biggest concern is that with this information the government could do a query like "Show me all the people with religion = 'muslim'" and get a list of names and addresses within a microsecond. Then filter it down to a more specific subset like: "Show me all the people with religion = 'muslim' and country of origin = 'Syria'"

next thing those that are trying to escape persecution from one government are just being watched by another.

Gratuitous Adviser:

15 Mar 2016 11:12:06am

I do not think it would be difficult to get the information you describe from many other sources.

Maybe a database will figure out who are the true "trying to escape persecution from one government" and the ones who came illegally (with money) to escape the fatigue of waiting in the queue. Maybe the database will determine who have the want and capability of integrating successfully into the greater Australian community compared to those that want to create a little Syria (you bought it up) in the Bankstown area but they will need to knock over the Lebanese first.

I'm funny but I have no problem being watched by the Australian Government and, I would prefer if the country did not generationally develop into an area of ghetto's and tribes, but I am moving off the original discussion theme.

Nyrang:

15 Mar 2016 10:56:00am

Utterly agree, Gratuitous, but it all goes further. What about workers in the privacy-security-surveillance industries who can (and do?) use their positions against partners, ex-partners, relatives, colleagues; anyone with whom they have fallen out or wish to benefit or feel better because of what they find out or can do to them? Who finds out if they transgress? What are the penalties against transgressors? Who enforces them? Wo protects agains false, mis-directed, incompetent, malicious interpretations of their data? (We all remember what Cardinal Richelieu boasted he could do three and a half centuries ago thereby answering himself the modern persistent falsehood, "if you have done no wrong you have nothing to fear".) Who in any surveillance organisation is brave enough to admit if mistakes are made - prefer to come clean, limit the damage rather than cover up and thereby get away with all of it - and come clean to whom? Who assures our society that all are safe, free, equally respected that transgressors are penalised, systems are safe? None of these things seem to happen. They are only beginning to be talked about and as so many writers have said, well after we know what modern spy systems already can do. We will all find out for sure what was meant; quis custodiet ipsos custodes, homo homini lupus.

Bill B:

15 Mar 2016 8:33:35am

This decision by the ABS is of no issue to those citizens who daily parade personal data on social media outlets. But, not so the rest of us. I suspect a much higher incidence of incomplete entries, unfortunate ink blots and indecipherable hand writing will be harvested in 2016.

hoolibob:

15 Mar 2016 8:34:14am

When the opt to have your private Census details for the benefit of Historical record was offered I smelled a rat & opted out. I note I was heavily involved at my local museum & historical society at the time. I completed my census as I would any document. I refused to answer questions that identified whether I was an aboriginal because I consider them my fellow equal Australian citizens & should be treated accordingly. I refused to answer questions that enquired whether a second language other than English was spoken in the home because it makes no difference to me & should make no difference to anyone else as long as we can communicate with dual nationals, aboriginal tongue speakers, new arrivals with a smile. I refused to answer give my permission for my records to be retained on computers because when banks can't even guarantee security of customer transactions with all their resources you have buckley's chance of govts that continually trim the Budgets of data retention places like the abs, recently Commonwealth & State libraries doing it. In fact the biggest dangers of breach in security comes with human entry of the data as anyone that has followed reports of the privacy breaches by Centrelink & Medicare. The country is actually a safer place by not having the information all in one place. That is just creating one big bullseye for hackers & misuse by rogue governments (I note the Nazi's were meticulous record keepers who targeted medical records to identify family links of Jews). The information on the Census for many years has been sold for to private agencies for financial gain. If the intention is to keep my private details & answers they have crossed over into the commercial survey market & I will submit a bill before provision of my answers or expect to negotiate & agree to terms as I would with any other survey company.

How many reductions to our private liberties are we going to endure in the so called name of National Security are we going to endure before we realise we are being conned. Already a huge Budget increase was given to this area & clearly disappeared into thin air if they need access to your Census answers to target individuals. This term of the LNP has been the worst in terms of so called National Security I've seen in a long time with everything from leaked spot visa checks on Melbourne Streets & mass raids on Islamic suspects houses. These have been put up by LNP & supported by Yes LNP anything you say Labor. Want your privacy back vote them both out Vote NONE OF THE ABOVE the line & get back your Senate vote they're attacking also.

whogoesthere:

15 Mar 2016 9:16:22am

you don't have to vote, just get your name crossed off.

I don't disagree with your assessment of most politicians, but what is the alternative ?. What would happen if no-one voted ?. Seems to me it's better to vote for more independents instead of not voting at all (which will help preserve the staus quo as 'rusted ons' will still vote.

Angela Faye:

15 Mar 2016 9:48:30am

Saw this message on the back of a ute recently "I love my Country but fear my Government"Probably an American sentiment but increasingly apt for Australia in the last few years.

I've voted informally on a couple of occasions, writing on the ballot paper something very similar to the second line in your post.Now I do what who goes there suggests below, vote independent and preference the major party candidates from the bottom up.

should be working:

15 Mar 2016 10:45:32am

Compulsory voting is has it's pluses and negatives, if you look at the history though, the premise behind it is not so bad. It was basically brought in so that politicians would spend more effort trying to convince the people to vote based on policy rather then spending all their time just trying to get people to come out and vote (like they do in the US elections).

Whether you actually vote or not is up to you, if you want to put a blank piece of paper as your vote, draw a rude symbol or write a politically motivated statement instead, then you have every right to do so. The vote wouldn't be counted, but it is a legitimate vote as long as you turn up because voting is about having your say as a citizen, not about showing which party your do or do not support.

Breakfast in Bed:

Ash:

15 Mar 2016 8:55:16am

This is follow on to the misuse of data already in place of information provided to the AEC to be on the electoral roll. Government cannot be trusted with big data. It will be used for purposes for which it was NOT provided.

For example.

Under subsection 90B(4), Item 4 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the CEA), the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) may provide roll information, including electors' date of birth and gender details to "a prescribed authority". A prescribed authority is defined in subsection 4(1) of the CEA to be either the Agency Head of an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999), or the Chief Executive Officer of a Commonwealth Authority as specified in the Electoral and Referendum Regulations 1940 (the Regulations). A list of the current prescribed authorities can be found in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

splod1:

15 Mar 2016 9:01:56am

Perhaps someone could enlighten me: Are we required by law to fill out census forms completely and accurately? Is there a penalty imposed if we choose not to identify ourselves on the form, if we choose not to fill out all or any sections, or if we choose to provide false information? How about handing up a blank form, except for the letters MYOB written across the page? Of course I would never seriously consider such a course of action. Data gleaned from the census is utilised for invaluable governmental forward planning. Still, the questions remain.

Breakfast in Bed:

truthnotfaith:

15 Mar 2016 10:35:22am

ummm ... forward planning ? are you kidding me? ... how come we no NBN or energy infrastructure or even better city planning? .. they knew these infrastructures were need few censuses back at least.. please ......................

sdrawkcaB:

15 Mar 2016 11:32:08am

Forward planning?!?

I was in Telecom and we were building the NBN in 1991 (25 years ago).When not being involved in optical fibre roll out, sometimes we would question exchange upgrades to be told census data showed it would be needed in a few years.My middle manager gave us a quick 5 minute talk on the basics of how they used census data for telephony.

The fact that we have the NBN debacle today shows they have corrupted the census just as they have everything else. My conclusion is they still use it for forward planning but that is not the main use. The main use is something more devious.

truthnotfaith:

15 Mar 2016 2:17:10pm

Yes, I agree with you, all they have done is make people more cynical and now want to contaminate the data just to get bac k at the government. How to determine the effectiveness of the massive expense doing census when it cannot be confirmed? Expensive social experiment. Statistics error will be compromised and do we spend billions now based on statistical manipulation in policy formulation? They have ruined the innocence of the census forever.But as sdrawkcaB says, NBN was never actually done although they had so called planning to this outcome so long ago it is distant memory. Planning has ba to do with population stats as compared to political posturing, and so called nation building for the little PEOPLE is a furphy. Even now they worry about a deficit instead of spending while the price is right to build our country, make jobs and create socially acceptable expense. But if we do not even own our land or major infrastructure, why bother? piss of massively expensive politicians and outsource administration to cheaper countries to operate and maintain Australians' voted for outcomes for each determined election period. outcomes be managed by elected bureaucracy of people with the SKILLS to be in these positions. Transparency and nothing but go forward for our nation. getting carried away now ... smiles ..

Tim:

15 Mar 2016 1:00:43pm

"Are we required by law to fill out census forms completely and accurately? Is there a penalty imposed if we choose not to identify ourselves on the form, if we choose not to fill out all or any sections, or if we choose to provide false information?"

Yes and yes. Sections 14 and 15 of the Census and Statistics Act 1905.

Mike:

Steve:

Shocked Again:

15 Mar 2016 9:07:01am

I certainly missed this bit of legislation. It is totally unacceptable. As for the rubbish about storing the identification data separately- this information is mainly of use when it can be linked with the other data, as it surely will be.

truebloo:

15 Mar 2016 9:07:49am

Government laws are there for a reason. So stop making a fuss and just tell them what they need to know. Your name is Humphrey B Bear, you have one wife and 26 children who all live at home with you.You own your own home and have 35 others which are all negatively geared, and a granny flat that you rent out to Godwin Grech. You spent census night on a single mattress at a sleep-out for CEO's - and there wasn't even one homeless person within coo-ee of that place. You read the Australian newspaper and watch Fox News, commercial television, and you never ever tune into the ABC. You are undecided on SSM and The Australian Republic. No, you are not a member of a union.

martin:

15 Mar 2016 9:10:02am

The data the census managed to collect from me when they caught me home in the last 30 years was all spurious. I was bahai/ buddist/ muslim/animist white/black/asian etc. About the only thing correct was my name- and now I will have to change that as well. Ha. Hmm- would a Census person accept that I am Malcolm TurDBull without proof?

Paul Harrison:

15 Mar 2016 9:16:08am

So the days of the tattooed bar-code are not far away, I suggest. I am already identified by a bar-code anyway, the point being that it is not yet attached to my body. So a time machine does exist, for we seem to be in 1984.

Nothing To See Here:

15 Mar 2016 2:35:59pm

You will be " Chipped ".... just like all the banking cards that are carried .There will be scanning devices on every street corner and shopping area...so as you go past one your presence will be logged.There will be targeted adverts blaring at you , using your name , as you walk past shops.Read science fiction ... it's all there... and more.

WaitWot:

15 Mar 2016 9:26:24am

Crocodile Dundee, 11 Ramsay Street, Summer Bay, NSW.

As someone who does care about their personal privacy, and does not use social media, knowingly use services that collect my personal information, use a VPN, etc, etc this is the best they'll get from me.

yun:

15 Mar 2016 5:02:22pm

@ Mike. You seem to really want to make people scarred of getting a fine. You seem to be a paid shill planted by big brother to bully people into compliance.I know I will not be giving accurate information for any census, that's if I do it at all. Never been fined in the past, don't imagine I ever will. Nothing to fear.

Forrest Gardener:

Jean Oliver:

15 Mar 2016 2:22:02pm

I don't believe the names need to be kept but surely fear of cross checking (I'm letting my imagination tell me what kind of cross checking might occur in the future) means someone has lied to another government agency. They just need to be consistent in their lying, so no problem.

Tabanus:

Nobody has ever explained to me why the government having some information about citizens is to be fought tooth and nail, yet private companies can have dossiers that would have made the NKVD weep with envy.

Has Mr Berg ever written urging tough controls on data collection and trading by private enterprise? On the use of such date to manipulate and target the vulnerabilities of consumers?

This is just another tirade against "big government", disguised as a concern about the right to privacy. That right was lost a generation ago, and nobody protested. The government is merely joining the pack, a long way behind and in a relatively minor way.

Tabanus:

To rail against one tiny part of data collection just seems to me to be mad: and it would be if that is what Mr Berg is about.

But as I said, he is not pro-privacy: he is anti-government.

And I would not be too sure about the danger presented by salesmen. They are amoral, and those who have no principles are, in my mind, the most dangerous. They do not see me as a human being, but as a source of money that must be milked.

truthnotfaith:

15 Mar 2016 2:56:43pm

I so admire your disconcerting preview to what comes next, so many taken the blue pill and are wilfully submitting because it is just easier.. apathy and weary-ness of living in 1984 forever forth grinds us all to eventual dust on the current path...............

1prawn2bishops:

Jungle Boy:

15 Mar 2016 2:28:36pm

Excellent summary, Tabanus, on Mr Berg's positions.

I was also wondering why he was silent on free speech, which he normally champions. Under free speech, which he seems to regard as an absolute, he should (if he's to be consistent) be urging governments to divulge and promulgate the extra information in the census, not raising concerns about their ability to keep it confidential.

Tabanus:

Thank you for getting my main point, which most others seem to have missed.

I am not for or against gov't having information, but is ludicrous to get agitated about one little piece of info for the gov't when whole dossiers on individuals can be purchased for next to nothing.

When I buy a jar of coffee at a shop, my credit card info and details are immediately available and coffee ads start popping up on my browser. An interest in a used car will lead to car retailers targeting me. I no longer donate other by cash to charities as they sell my name to others leading to my phone ringing day and night. My local politicians send me letters which are targeted to what they think I am interested in, based on the database they have on me. (They are usually totally wrong, but that is not the data's fault, it is their assumptions.).

gnome:

15 Mar 2016 10:06:05am

I think all you people need to get over yourselves. Do you really think the government is going to set up a new bureaucracy to vet the information of 24 million individual citizens to harass the ones who don't conform to the pack.

Even if they did, why would any of you think you are outside the groupthink of the vast majority? There aren't enough prisons on earth, let alone in Australia, to hold everyone with minds and affairs as minor as yours.

Terry:

Hmm seeing as all this info is fed into a computer, its pretty easy to track individuals, combine that with the Data Retention scheme, and the government has all the info they could ever want on you.

Joe blogs looking up Marxist readings on the net, let cross reference his censorship data, oh he lives in that suburb that has seen a swing from the "insert preferred politcal party here", lets cross reference all the census data on that suburb with their browsing habits, oh looks like we will lose that seat in the next election, lets cut all that promised funding and move it to that other seat that the computer algorithms is saying we will win with a bit of a push.

sdrawkcaB:

15 Mar 2016 11:45:54am

Individual harassment?No. More like an excuse to meddle and interfere some more by introducing even greater compliance and restriction on freedoms.

Outside Groupthink?Actually I do. Twain came out with a piece of wisdom that is "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"I have that quote on my desk alongside Menken's "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I try (not always successfully) to incorporate those ideas.

An example for me is I autodidactically learn in place of standard groupthink leisure activity which is 4 hours of TV a day. It's autodidactically because I believe university teaches how to get the right answer and not independent thinking.

Mike:

Filz:

15 Mar 2016 2:29:48pm

So you keep saying.

There's one piece of government action I would like to see, however, which may actually benefit the country in some form and which is not available through public sources. That is the cross-referencing of the electoral rolls with a list of those on Centrelink benefits.

As my past experience of over 40 years has led me to believe that the electoral rolls are up to 40% incorrect, due to people not notifying changes of address, or not being on the rolls at all. My contention is that if you're going to hold out your hand and gratefully receive government benefits, then you also have a responsibility to vote. Whether you vote informally or not, is up to the individual. Of course, certain classes could be exempted, i.e. refugees but it would bring a reality to our voting practices.

The up-side for government would be that if you're not on the rolls, you receive no benefit. That could be remedied in an instant if the AEC forms could be completed at a Centrelink office, or on-line.

garybenno:

15 Mar 2016 6:06:53pm

I think there is already sufficient information in government data bases to check those on CL benefits to a spot on the AEC rolls, just seems to be a lack of drive to check. I agree with your argument though, if you want taxpayer benefits then the least you can do is cast a vote.

Blanik:

MaxB:

15 Mar 2016 10:09:45am

Yes there are lots of different points of private data collection but none of them would quite open the kimono like census with retained personal details, it was outlawed for good reason I say. What does a firewall matter if the data is retained in order to be accessed. I can hear economic geographers (or ASIO or whoever wants to use it) saying "But, but, but... Big Data!". There was an interesting article a while back on just how many government departments have already sought access to the newly retained metadata.

graazt:

15 Mar 2016 2:30:13pm

One of the recommendations for the metadata retention regime was the introduction of legislation requiring the provision of serious data breach notifications to affected parties in the event of a breach.

Metadata retention is now the law of the land. The data breach legislation isn't - supposedly to come in 2016. Priorities eh?

If your personal info gets hacked from a government system, you think you'll be entitled to compensation for any damages that arise? Brandis is keen to ensure that privacy can never be a tort. I'm not seeing it happening.

Jean Oliver:

15 Mar 2016 10:42:53am

Please fill in your Census form correctly. The data collected has far more value and use than people know. Population trends, movements, how long someone has lived in one area. The data is invaluable especially for social research.

leafygreens:

15 Mar 2016 11:35:33am

@Jean

Why is how long 'identifiable me' has lived in the area of any value? Cutting the data pool by a demographic has never needed my identity. Plus a social researcher shouldn't get access to that info until well after I am dead (and probably moved several times anyway) Government types can get it from the electoral roll more accurately than the census (that's which is only in 5 year snapshots anyway... I could have moved in the day after or the day before and be gone the day before or the day after the next one.). Or they can tell who owned what from the land titles database.. and what I earn from my tax files... ditto my vehicle rego (complete with picture..), my medical records, or any other interaction I have with government via a state or federal agency..

I understand valid demographic info is essential to resource allocation, which is why people threatening to be untruthful on the census is unhelpful to getting the schools, medical and other essentials they may need in the future,

We keep confusing wanting to know with a right to know. Rights should be guarded and defended vigorously. They shouldn't be eroded by stealth or broken by force.. and the contract of trust with our elected representatives and the civil servants behind them shouldn't ever be taken for granted.

Curiosity is not a right. Trust is required. Transparency is essential

Jean Oliver:

15 Mar 2016 2:09:46pm

To leafygreens, Hudson Godfrey and reaver: Up until now this information I'm citing as an example did not have your address or name. It used the locality only. It would show for example that 100 householders moved away and 20 householders moved into an area. Using land titles only shows change of ownership of a parcel of land or that land has been subdivided. It doesn't do what ABS data can do. Researches can't identify you. There is no need for individual names and addresses to be kept and I'm not arguing they should. I'm asking people to fill out the form correctly.

Hudson Godfrey:

15 Mar 2016 3:44:02pm

The problem becomes that much as I agree with you about the previously established intended use of this information for planning purposes etc, it would seem that they must intend keeping personal data for some reason. Since I distrust that reason and have no other way to accurately lodge a form my feeling about it is simply that if there's a way to be found round it civil disobedience seems justified.

Hudson Godfrey:

reaver:

15 Mar 2016 12:43:23pm

If the data, my data, has value then why should the government get that value, Jean? How does it benefit me to have the government take, retain and use my personal, and what should be private, information? How does it benefit me to have the government know how long I have lived in a particular area? That the data collected has far more value and use than people know is the problem, not a justification for forcing me to hand it over.

leafygreens:

15 Mar 2016 4:40:17pm

I am not confused :-)Hudson asked about penalty for non complying, you exhorted us to fill it out correctly so social researchers had 'invaluable' data. The info being discussed is personal linkage data (name and address) to be retained with your other responses. The only way to fill out a census form 'correctly' is to do it truthfully and completely to the best of your knowledge... none of us can plausibly deny knowing our name and address so leaving them off is either incorrect or wilfully disobedient. Supplying false information is just that... complete with potential fines..

Thus back to the original question... the penalty for refusing to comply (...whether noncompliance is filling the form out 'incorrectly' by either leaving your name and address off, supplying false info, or not filling it out at all)

Leafygreens:

15 Mar 2016 8:56:15pm

Apologies Hudson, I didn't repeat what had been posted further up by the time the thread had evolved. The census act apparently allows for a daily penalty to be applied once you are directed to complete a form and fail to do so... Of the order of $120 per day. It is substantial but the issue is how readily you can be caught and if it is worth the effort to penalise everyone who non complies :-)

garybenno:

15 Mar 2016 6:17:28pm

Any confusion has been caused by your posts Jean, the topic is about the change to the data collection, in that your name and address are no longer going to be disconnected from your data and destroyed.

garybenno:

15 Mar 2016 6:10:15pm

Hi Jean "The data is invaluable especially for social research." which in itself is fine, the problem comes when this data is used for social engineering. It has happened in the past, is happening now and most likely will continue to happen in the future

deluded_jim:

Not Home:

15 Mar 2016 10:25:11am

The questions in the census are all prefaced ' All the people at your home address Tonight'......sadly I always seem to be away camping that night. I fill in the name, put my location on census night as 'out bush camping' and hand it back. Problem solved!

Herkimer Snerd:

Google Me:

15 Mar 2016 10:25:58am

And watch out when you use Google maps to find a destination. I never put in the correct house/business number I am going to - I use the next house number or a number opposite. They have a complete list of where you go to. That way the Feds will take ages to find out your precise movements.

J Marks:

15 Mar 2016 10:28:20am

I am very disappointed that the ABS will be keeping our personal details from the Census. With todays continual hacking of personal/financial information, I cannot believe that the ABS will be considered off limits by hackers.

I am also surprised that no-one so far has mentioned that this year's Census will be done ONLINE (except for those without computer access). This could make it a lot harder to withhold identifying information or to ignore specific questions.

sdrawkcaB:

In our household my oldest son fills it in. He has since moved out so I am not sure what is going to happen this time. Perhaps the wife will feel the urge.

The thing I do know is I am not filling it out on a computer using my internet connection which government has not paid for (computer or internet). As for requesting paper...presumably the ABS takes all of the action to make sure that happens as like in 2011.

truthnotfaith:

15 Mar 2016 10:28:42am

I will be visiting someone or just plain fake answers.... if they want to track me I shall leave them a muddy track... this is invasion of privacy to nth degree. We have a books in schools saying we invaded Australia, which is bollocks, we colonised. Bad for indigenous outcomes at time and future but NOT an invasion. Those colonising didn't even consider indigenous population was a matter to be concerned about till later. An invasion would have been send in the troops and clear the way. The disastrous coming together of tribes via expansion to other continents wasn't invasion. But this is invasion by deliberate stealth. Hidden behind reasoning that can be determined by interpolation of facts. All about profiling. I vote NO!

whogoesthere:

15 Mar 2016 11:00:49am

You're being pedantic about definitions. Let's say you lived on an island with a few thousand others, and you'd all been living there with no interference for thousands of years. Then a big boat with lots of people rock up, start building farms and towns and just ignore you. If you protest they just push you away, and they have big guns that can easily kill you if you get too knarky. The 'colonisers' just didn't consider your small family and friends was a matter to be concerned about. They don't need to send in troops because you can't fight back in any real way.

NotBlindLikeOthers:

15 Mar 2016 2:50:47pm

So your saying that if the colonists out number and out gun the locals it's an invasion ? Population estimates of the time of this "invasion" show that the "defenseless" locals out numbered the "invaders" buy hundreds to one. So your analogy is completely without merit. I can also assume from your statements that you believe that only people of European decent can be racist.

whogoesthere:

15 Mar 2016 4:25:59pm

No, I firmly believe people of any colour can be racist., no idea how you came to that conclusion. Do you really believe the indigenous population of Australia could have stopped white settlement ?. That if the locals had said 'we'd rather you didn't live here' the Brits would have just packed up and sailed home ?. My anaolgy is fine. If aliens came and 'colonised' us in the same way I'm sure you'd feel 'invaded'.

truthnotfaith:

15 Mar 2016 3:18:08pm

colonisation.

how do you think humanity got all over the planet and displaced so many other species along the way. Every species tries to enter an area of low resistance and low competition for resources and expansion of own species sub tribe... things are different NOW, (maybe not for Russia) but it was not looked at with the same perspective then, as to our perspective now. Not right or wrong to nature, just human ethics which is biased by the present, not the past. Do you condemn all relatives that came before you for having families with women(age bearing obviously) aged below what we now consider as paedophiles..? ethics must be a seen through a lens when determining in hindsight.

whogoesthere:

15 Mar 2016 4:31:51pm

You are right, everyone did it. Human history can be summed up as 'he who has the biggest stick wins'. And no I don't feel guilty about it. But lets not pretend it was something other than it was. The Normans invaded England in 1066, the Mongols invaded China, and so on. Not sure why people don't like the word invade, that's people did/do.

jill:

On the other hand, I have quite a lot of faith in governments of all levels - not their virtue, but their incompetence. Having worked in government for many years, I'm always bemused/amused by conspiracy theories. Governments simply aren't that organised.

In any case, the Council, State Govt, bank, Medicare, etc etc already know who and where I am. Even the ABC could track me down, as I had to give my email address to send this comment!

Genealogisti:

15 Mar 2016 10:46:37am

Everyone doing Family History research are very grateful that the UK, US, Ireland and others (except Australia) release their census data only 100 years after collection and regardless of how much we would like later data, it is never released early. No reports of any leaks or thefts either.

Michael:

NotBlindLikeOthers:

15 Mar 2016 2:58:35pm

"No reports of any leaks or thefts either."There never would be. All organization whether private or government go to extraordinary lengths to see that breaches are not made public. Private companies would suffer from negative publicity, share prices would drop and they would also be inundated with law suits. What do you think would happen to the census in the UK if it was made public that their security had been breached ? From then on ALL census data would be suspect (false info. being supplied, I for one would not supply accurate data), there would more than likely also be a call for the census to be discontinued completely.

Glenn:

15 Mar 2016 7:14:34pm

Assisting people in their hobby of genealogy is the absolute last reason why we should store census data. Genealogists are a nuisance. My unmarried spouse and I have had a mad genealogist in our family pestering us for years to get married, because our unmarried status ruins the symmetry of their crummy family tree. These people are a menace, seeking to reduce the superb messiness and untidiness of human existence to branches on a fake tree in a book.

Orion:

15 Mar 2016 10:46:50am

What's the big deal? I am not concerned about this. I depend on ABS epidemiological data for some aspects of research which could not be done without it. It's good quality data which is otherwise unobtainable and it's well managed in my opinion. I don't believe the doomsday scare stories about possible totalitarian governments in this country with bar-coded or microchipped citizens. I don't really see why people are so freaked out about it. What worries me a lot more is the collection and sharing of personal data by private enterprise, most of which is unavoidable by consumers who are obliged to provide it in order to get the product/service.

Richard:

15 Mar 2016 1:51:06pm

That's lovely for you Orion. However, just because you cannot imagine something does not mean it could not occur. There is no reason why the government needs to associate our individual identities with census responses. And if you cannot understand the different between private enterprise, who cannot force you to do anything, and the government, who can, perhaps we shouldn't really be that interested in your opinions on the topic, should we?

Leroy:

15 Mar 2016 8:49:14pm

And wouldn't that data that you use be exactly the same if the original forms were destroyed after it was collected, or would destroying the forms somehow alter the data? Surely when we are dealing with people's private information, the onus should be on the government to prove the case why it needs to be retained, rather than the citizen prove why it shouldn't.

MD:

15 Mar 2016 10:52:41am

New Zealand started attaching any data available on its citizens in one file in the 1970s. In the late 1980s, my father started receiving demands to repay a loan that he hadn't taken out. Fortunately for him, he was managing a law office at the time, and when the finance company refused to withdraw their claim, my father subpoenaed them to find out the basis on which they'd made the demands. They'd corruptly obtained my father's details from an employee at the government database as those of someone with the same name. That employee was imprisoned, the finance company was penalised (IMO a corporation that operates corruptly should be disenfranchised, not just slapped on the wrist, but governments don't let that happen to themselves....) and my father and his representatives went to Wanganui, where the database was physically located, to watch my father's file be completely erased and which the government would have to reassemble from newly gathered data. That had some meaning in those days, pre-net, pre-web,-pre-cloud, it's a meaningless placebo now. As for this government, a year ago, they were musing over whether to abandon the census altogether as a cost saving. Perhaps the tasty option of keeping the names and addresses is what saved it? Notions of personal integrity are being increasingly perverted. That Orwell, he had some funny ideas, didn't he?

Natasha:

15 Mar 2016 11:10:35am

Given that the ABS had the 'embarrassing' situation of several boxes of completed census forms found lying beside an outdoor 'secure' recycling bin several years ago, I doubt their concept of or adherance to security measures is remotely acceptable. Having said that, I rarely complete any of the personal information in the census - they simply do NOT need some of the data they demand.

Not Anonomous:

15 Mar 2016 11:16:36am

PAST CENSUS FORMS

I thank the ABC for bringing this to light.

re past census data if you speak to the census employees on the ground operating the data collection centres for the govt agency ABS you would be informed that the census forms are scanned into the system with the name and address of each person recorded followed by the remainder of the form being scanned.

The name of and address of the person now located with the census form within the software program is scrambled using encryption technology.

The data is then stored on computers owned by American company IBM.

The data of each form has been stored with the name attached but encrypted for multiple past census.

Demac:

"The risks to privacy are blindingly obvious. The safest way to protect data is to not collect it at all."

I assume you offer the same advice to your corporate masters?

"While the Coalition's support for traditional rights and freedoms has taken a battering over the past few years, overriding the ABS decision would go some way to reclaiming its liberal heritage."

Yeah, I'm not doing to hold my breath. How is Cory Bernardi going to be able to round up the unbelievers and deviants without their names and addresses?

Remember IBM and the Nazis? Using 1933 census data, and whizzbang new tabulation machines (and consultation services) from IBM, the Nazis were able to identify Germans with only one Jewish ancestor. As they progressively occupied parts of Europe these 'services' were rolled out to ensure all 'Jews' were swept up.

I'll be raising this issue with my local member or anonymising my own data.

ram:

Demac:

15 Mar 2016 1:57:07pm

ram:"the first thing the Nazis did was to ban firearms"

Except that they didn't. The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws and the incoming Nazi regime didn't make any dramatic changes, apart from restrictions targeting Jews and Communists and similar undesirables, of course.

Erick Quang :

LMAO2:

When did Aussies go from .. alright fair enough that sounds fair, its too late we cant do anymore for freedom lets just take it because that's how the government works.

Its a great article that makes clear again that this government and most likely opposition have an agenda that resembles either far right nazi regime or the far left communist.

And it is up to each person to stand against it, its that simple, no one ever said that freedom comes at no cost this includes privacy. If you are scared don't give up your rights (which doesn't really exist without a charter of rights and freedoms) fight for them, loudly.

Reza's Ghost:

sdrawkcaB:

15 Mar 2016 2:45:53pm

politicalcompass will show you our parliament is up there on the world stage when it comes to being authoritarian.

No need to worry about leftist authoritarian governments in Australia, our last government that was left of centre was Whitlam and he was definitively left. It would seem right wing authoritarianism is fairly well entrenched and has been since Howard.

As for freedom, there is no government in the G20 that is right of centre and libertarian in nature. There are a few Europeans that are left of centre and libertarian in nature (the French are consistently centre left libertarians). Everyone else is on the authoritarian side of the coin.

To defend your freedom, there is another option from being noisy and that is the Mohandas Ghandi approach. That is my approach - that is, where practical, don't play their game.

In terms of the census, a non-control freak authoritarian way would be to not ask for name and address - street name and suburb would drill down deep enough for forward planning.

blerter:

15 Mar 2016 11:57:52am

I work in public health.Accurate census data is essential for allocating resources, planning facilities, monitoring performance and outcomes versus funding. Please don't destroy the integrity of ths data.Australians are much more paranoid about centralised governments collecting data than many other countries (e.g. UK and scandanavia). Why is this so? Are our governments any worse?In the cost-benefit analysis, planning and health research misses out to paranoia in Australia.Yes, there have always been data breaches - how many of them actually hurt people (apart from Ashley Madison?). Many of the worst data breaches are related to paper records from doctors and health departments - a risk that will always be present.

al:

15 Mar 2016 12:48:38pm

The proposed e-health system is yet another intrusion into people's personal information. Not in a million years will I sign up to a system that is open to hacking and open to every curious health receptionist accessing personal information.

blert:

15 Mar 2016 1:30:47pm

al, Fair enough.But do you have any idea how many tests and scans get repeated because patients lose bits of paper? How much time is wasted by doctors calling other clinics to get info on a patient?Australia needs to have a discussion about risks and benefits of data linkage and security.

NotBlindLikeOthers:

15 Mar 2016 3:12:31pm

For the type of planning you are referring to does not need the names and addresses of individuals. All the essential data can be supplied without the ASB retaining personal identifying information, just the way it has been in the past.

Instead of pleading with us to just give in and surrender why not try and ensure that this sort of information is not retained in the first place. Personal identifying information IS NOT REQUIRED for planning purposes.

sosirius:

15 Mar 2016 12:11:00pm

I think this article is a bit disingenuous given that it slates the blame home at the ABS as though this is all their doing, though in the next breath explains that it was Snedden who mandated the destruction of names from the census in the first place. Obviously it is the government who has directed that this information no longer be destroyed but kept. The ABS can't mandate anything.

I am unsure what the government purpose is on this one. As with much the LNP do it's questionable. Firstly they began by suggesting that they would move to collect the census only every 10 years instead of every 5 so that they could save a heap of money. Now they have made the announcement about storing identification information at the same time as Turnbull's other announcements regarding his minister's wrong doings - over Christmas/New Year.

The question is - do they actually want to get rid of the census or has somebody pointed out to them that it would be really valuable if it had names attached or is it just more LNP indecision? Personally, I think threat is at the back of much that they do. Bullies at best, Tyrants at worst.

Not Anonymous:

"Obviously it is the government who has directed that this information no longer be destroyed but kept"

I understand.

You are trained from a child to believe and accept what you are told by authorities and in this case govt agencies.

The govt statement is true. Your information is stored anonymously. If you don't want to know more well thanks for reading.

What you are not being told is that your census info is stored anonymously but is accessible as non-anonymous data.

Prior to the pending 2016 census, the name and address on all census form was not destroyed prior to the census forms being scanned and uploaded.

After scanning names and addresses on the census forms are encrypted but stay connected with your answers.

This is where the govt agency ABS and politicians get say "census information is stored anonymously". And they are correct at this stage.

All of the information located on the census forms is stored anonymously on computer systems owed by the American company IBM with the name and address encrypted.

What the agency and politicians are refraining from telling you is that your census name and address while encypted during storage on IBM owned computer system, can be unencrypted and made visible using an encryption key.

This means that while your census data is encrypted it is stored anonymously but when the encryption key is used, your name and address become visible and your data non-aonymously connected to you and you associates located on the premises on census night.

Jason:

15 Mar 2016 12:12:15pm

This from the ABS website: We ask the general public for their cooperation, and most people provide information willingly. If you do not complete the Census form, the Australian Statistician has the power to direct you in writing to provide the information. The Census and Statistics Act 1905 provides for penalties of up to $110 a day for failure to complete and return a form.

Others in this forum have made the point already - but it's worth repeating. If you can't beat them, then join them - but at the same time, baffle them with BS. I look forward to thinking up imaginative responses to this latest invasion of privacy.

John:

15 Mar 2016 12:17:59pm

Do what I do.

When the census taker calls I insist on having the form left with me to fill in later, together with an envelope for it to be mailed when completed. My understanding is that the census-taker makes some note that the form is identifiable and has been supplied to me, so I cannot later be charged with failure to comply.

I then simply fill in the form and leave out any information I regard as improperly sought, such as income, ethnic background, marital status or whatever, and mail it in.

Esteban:

ingenuous:

Esteban, unless it is going to be used against you, which was and remains a common thing. At that point you have to consider whether that's a private thing or if it should be public knowledge.

There are many things that should be just part of the rich background of life but which are not seen as such by everyone. Write "I'm proud to be Muslim" on your house and see how many yobbos come and visit you.

Windlass:

bushie:

15 Mar 2016 12:28:28pm

From Fairfax media 12 months ago:

"Former NAB banker Lukas Kamay and former Australian Bureau of Statistics employee Christopher Hill had been involved in the worst case of insider trading to come before the courts in Australia, said Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth."

Jess:

uni radical:

15 Mar 2016 12:34:08pm

During the last Census a little under 750,000 of adults in Australia had refused to state their country of birth, among many other things.

Most telling is the fact that they refused to give information about their Income, their Labour status (unemployed, employed, how many hours worked, etc.), their schooling or attendance in training or education, their volunteering or caring activities, and their occupation.

Apparently they had had a very good reason "to hide" information about themselves and their families from the government. One of the reasons is that they are probably "illegally in the country" and taking every precaution not to identify themselves to the government even when the name is not displayed on the form, but their address could be located.

These 750,000 of adults were not "illiterate" in the sense that they didn't understand the questions. They deliberately chose to give information about their Sex, their Age or marital status. They also chose to tick off the box "Not Stated" instead of "Not Applicable" along the same column which signifies that they understood the implication.

Apparently Chris forgets that strict "protection of privacy" can also protect the people illegally living and working in Australia.

graazt:

ingenuous:

15 Mar 2016 4:01:54pm

The census is supposed to be about predicting the need for necessary services and hence the census is about supplying services. Law enforcement must be separate or we will get garbage census information for the reasons noted.

Surely this is as obvious as the nose on the face of every ABS officer.

graazt:

15 Mar 2016 4:31:58pm

Yes, although I tend to think that if Australians are too apathetic to resist these laws in the first place (because it's a different place than when they marched against Hawkie's hukou system), they're not going to bother with civil disobedience.

Between the safety first crowd, the law-and-order crowd and Gen Facebook, I'm just not sure anyone cares about privacy. Neither their own nor that anyone else might care about theirs.

Son of Zaky:

15 Mar 2016 1:02:53pm

I'm one of those rare people who is less concerned about their "legality" and more concerned about whether them being here is a nett benefit to the nation or not. "Legality" is something which can be sorted at any time with the stroke of a pen.

And seeing as "illegal" people are less likely to ever do anything that brings them to the attention of the authorities, I can see huge merit in having even more of them here.

It would also have the undoubted benefit of allowing me to watch your paranoid head explode.

SS:

"The notorious spyware FinFisher, used to infect mobile phones and computers to place targets under surveillance, has been found in a Sydney data centre.

A proxy server inside the Global Switch data centre in Ultimo, Sydney is being used to obscure the real user of the spyware, in this case an Indonesian government agency, according to a group of technology researchers."

Seems there was also a hack on BoM recently.

So given a government that cannot deliver a decent NBN, seriously doubt their capabilities to safeguard personal ABS identification data or the metadata collected for that matter.

Time for a challenge in the High Court for the Census collection changes.

For the dinosaurs that think they need a census for the ABS to collect info they need for public planning, life has moved on. Hire some people with big data skills to show you how to get what data you need from already available sources. If you want innovation it is not done with paper forms and people door knocking. This can only be concluded to have other motives.

xstephen:

Pavel:

Sure... and only the believers in a Great Good Government up in the sky will allow their government to decide what is "shoddy science" and punish anyone who doesn't follow it.

As a reminder, government pushed DDT quite recently.

Plus, if you find me some not shoddy science to explain why a 12-hour-old needs to be vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease, let me know.

Also, a vaccine is supposed to work by provoking a response from your immune system and getting it to produce anti-bodies for whatever is in the vaccine. Given that a just-born has no immune system yet, can your science explain to me how the HepB shot works?

Joan Bennett:

15 Mar 2016 12:43:27pm

A name and address is all a violent ex partner needs. What if the violent ex works for the ABS? They may not have access to the files previously in the short time they were kept before shredding, but now they can look into them at their leisure...

KMS:

15 Mar 2016 12:46:43pm

I'm more concerned with the privacy invasions by business and the retention of personal information to be shared only by business partners and affiliates as is the con. For a price and a convenient inclusion to dot the I's and cross the T's of the Privacy Act, as an affiliate or partner anyone can buy personal information on another. Is government more insidious and less trustworthy than business? We are a democracy, we are continually told. If that is the case then governments should be trusted to use personal data appropriately. If the trust is absent, so too is our democracy.

How come never a criticism of business commercial privacy invasions, Chris Berg? As for data being compromised and hacked, private industry has a long history from the financial industry through every business and industry group and retailer.

Very worried:

15 Mar 2016 12:47:54pm

Scenario, hacker finds that Mr X has identified as being of the Jewish faith, hacker searches for Mr X and finds his address, hacker is a Muslim and obeys the Quran and goes to the address of Mr X and kills him!A perfect reason why not to identify anyone!

Son of Zaky:

15 Mar 2016 1:57:01pm

Sometimes I find myself wondering if how we lived in the days before the Interweb is even remotely understood by today's bright and shiny young tech wizzes.

The same accessibility was possible in days of yore simply by looking in the phone book for Jewish-sounding names, going down to the State Library and reading the voter's rolls, or waiting outside a synagogue and noting who came out and where they went home to. At a pinch you could even get a job as a sales assistant in a shop selling yarmulkes and reading the client list. Seriously mate, it doesn't take a "hacker" to find anybody if you're even half competent.

Jeffo:

15 Mar 2016 12:59:41pm

Why?

What statistical benefit is gained by linking your name and address to the rest of your data? Statistics is the science of determining long term and/or historical trends from large aggregations of data. The details of precisely who those details relate to is irrelevant to those trends.

This can only be law enforcement related. It is, as the author suggests, merely an extension of the data retention laws which will allow the security services to match your communications to your tax and census information.

These changes represent a monstrous invasion of the citizen's privacy all covered by the fig-leaf excuse that it is being done to ensure our security. An excuse which most of us have realised by now, is just a lie.

garybenno:

15 Mar 2016 1:03:54pm

All data collected by business or by government is available to purchase. Your personal information has been for sale for decades and the worry is the details required in a census are like gold to the commercial world and others who seek to influence what you do where you go and who you go with. The trafficking of private data is an industry in itself and our government departments are right in there and trading. Back in 1989 I decided to retire from the Navy and applied for long service leave on half pay ie. I doubled the period of LSL almost immediately I was hounded by "investment brokers" seeking to influence where I would place my Commuted pension. After probably a dozen unsolicited calls I decided to agree to meet the next caller to discuss. After about 2 hours of discussion and pages of glossy brochures the woman finally got out the application documents and started filling in all the details, I let her get right up to the bit where I signed up when I told her I had invested the money the previous week. What followed was the dummy spit of the month, I let her out the front door with a comment that maybe now I might be left alone, it worked a treat the stupid calls ended from that point on.

Paulie:

15 Mar 2016 1:08:30pm

I see a lot of comments on the collection of data and I agree with the majority. I feel really ripped off in the way the authorities chose to inform us "On the December 18........we were quietly told.....". If there is a justifyable reason for this then what is it? Why has there not been a large announcement with the accompanying reasons and rationale for such a drastic move in policy? Does this not suggest that the reasons are not entirely in our best interest? Maybe the government should of enacted some of their National Interest rhetoric and banned media from reporting it like they do regarding the Gulags in the Pacific. Personally, I am fed up with the governing authorities treating us like sheep to be herded in any direction they so choose with the threat of fines and penalties for non compliance. What are we to expect next? Should we be forced to write our names on our ballot paper at the next election so the powers that be can target us if we vote against them?

Codger:

15 Mar 2016 1:45:49pm

The census is a useful tool and it would be a shame if it became less useful because of a civil disobedience campaign.

Ultimately the government is responsible for deciding the privacy issues and if it wants to intrude on privacy it has an obligation to produce good reasons for doing so and those reasons should be more than, for example, simply to assist people studying genealogy.

While they are explaining things the government might also explain why anomalies such as not giving an option of "no religion" does not distort the data by causing the respondents to default to a nominal religion.

eyedunno:

member of the proletariat:

15 Mar 2016 2:15:06pm

I have always enjoyed filling in the Census, as I knew this information would ultimately assist society. But if the process is no longer anonymous the data I provide for the 2016 cencus will now not be accurate or even valid. Further ... given the ABS has no way of assessing the veracity of my 2016 data, when compared to the previous census (they do not have my name/address linked to the previous data) the chances of someone from the ABS questioning the information I have provided is negligable, if not zero.

In the end it is the relevance of the ABS as a tool for the improvement of society and provide accurate data that is at stake here. I wonder if the "Sir Humphrey Appleby" at the ABS truly understands this.

Maxx:

rabel111:

15 Mar 2016 2:16:41pm

The question that will be asked now, by anyone use ABS data will be, how accurate is the data. I suspect many people will be tempted to just make it up if its going to be identifiable.As it was in the past, anonymity allowed people to tell the truth without fear of reprisal or persecution. That is now lost. Forever.Will I give true and accurate information on my census form. Well ofcourse. The law says I must. Its just impossible to police!

Jasper:

15 Mar 2016 2:17:58pm

From an historical perspective it has always been disappointing that our genealogical data has NOT been preserved in the same way as other countries do.The UK Census has long been a primary source for tracing our ancestry.It has been a shame that our descendants wouldn't have that same resource available.This is hardly as bad as all the OTHER records and mechanisms that are now out there for tracking us.

Trev:

15 Mar 2016 2:27:35pm

Trust us, we are from the LNP government and our advertising for re-election is paid for by the taxpayer. When are we going to vote them out of office to stop the rot. Yes, I won't put Jedhi Knight on my religious choice next Census.

Budgie Smuggler:

15 Mar 2016 2:29:47pm

For hundreds of years governments and private companies have been collecting personal information. Without doing that commerce wouldn't exist, except at the most primitive level, because it would be so inefficient.

The ONLY people who need to be concerned about data collection are the crooks ..... in other words politicians, thieves, murderers, white collar criminals or anyone who walks down a street and bashes someone (it's on camera).

If you are honest and law abiding IT DOESN'T MATTER what data people have about you. Don't be paranoid.

Under law, everyone should have access to their "own" data if they wish to verify the accuracy, and ALL organisations, including the police and governments, should be compelled under law to provide that information to the specific person requesting it. THAT'S where we have a problem with data collection ....... organisations will often do anything to AVOID handing over that information. That can be rectified by new and better data access laws.

Budgie Smuggler:

15 Mar 2016 8:14:36pm

Graazt, the subject matter is "personal information" (meaning personal information on a data base or a piece of paper). The subject matter is "not" what you do on the toilet or in bed, whilst being viewed through glass walls in your house. Nice "try" graazt.

Glenn:

15 Mar 2016 5:24:01pm

That's a ridiculous argument. It is predicated on the assumption that people in government and in business occupy some sort of higher echelon than the general public and therefore are entitled to know their private details.

People employed by the government and people who work for companies are humans like the rest of us. They have no more right to possess our personal information than we have to possess theirs.

Budgie Smuggler:

15 Mar 2016 8:08:40pm

Nope Glenn, it works "BOTH* ways. Government, business and police should have the right to collect personal information about us, and we should have the right to collect personal information about government, business and police. How do you think crooks from the government, business and police are caught? How do you think private citizen crooks are caught? Via "non" personal information?

Banning personal information collection would result in an uncivilised, unworkable society.

jungle69:

15 Mar 2016 2:41:42pm

I don't believe the ABS has protected our privacy with the census in the past. I remember as a youth my 'mildly religious' parents who never attended church, filled out the census and ticked that we were of Catholic denomination. A few months later we were visited by the local Catholic minister asking why we hadn't been attending church. When we asked how he knew we were Catholic and where we lived he stated 'off the record', census information. He then followed up with "I shouldn't have told you that". I find privacy is a concept or perception rather than a reality.

Jess:

15 Mar 2016 5:12:42pm

Census data only comes out a many months to a year after Census has been collected... I doubt that the source of the answer to the religious question would have been a Census leak. More likely they were talking about it socially and a member reported back.

Glenn:

adam bonner:

15 Mar 2016 2:55:30pm

As the modern Australian police state continues to grow it will be necessary to obtain up to date data and cross reference it with identity. As far as the census goes the only way to do that is to retain information which allows for respondents to be identified. It is yet another reason why Australians should not fill in census forms or fill them in incorrectly, particularly personal information details. Adam Bonner

rfb:

15 Mar 2016 3:02:31pm

I used refuel my car at the local service station until I received a letter from the fuel company (sent to me personaly at my private address) telling me that because I drove suck-and-such a vehicle (a station-waggon, not up-market by any means) I could possibly save money if I used premium grade fuel. I had never given any party involved with this letter my private details but the letter went to the correct address.

I solved that problem by not ever using that particular fuel companies. product again. Their letter worked, just not as it was intended.

Philip N:

15 Mar 2016 3:14:49pm

I could never understand the Civil Libertarian Activists. They are screaming abut the government having some basic personal information which would assist with targeting service delivery and for security purposes. However they either don't understand or don't care about the extensive personal information, about each one of us, collected by the private companies and being sold to anyone willing to pay.

Chris, do you realize that Coles Insurance will charge insurance premiums according to your purchasing habits, which are extracted from your fly-by records. As an example; They claim that someone buying cornflakes and paste will pay lesser premium than someone buying meat, alcohol or buying petrol after 10:00 pm. It is actually frightening to see the details they know about you.

If you need to find someone's insurance or credit records or basically anything else, you can purchase the information from the providers for a small fee.

To discuss the notion of privacy in the 'age of communications overload' is absolutely meaningless. I have never read any objections from you Chris or any other Civil Libertarian Activist about the individual, personal details collected or traded by the private companies. I have never read anything about the Fly-by programmes where naive people, for few worthless points, provide their personal information, which is then matched against all their purchases and other activities and used for whatever purpose they want. This is fa more dangerous than any information collected by the government.

Frankly, I would rather the government having my personal details where I have some control of its use that having every detail of my private life being sold to anyone for a small fee - of which I have no control.

Demac:

"To discuss the notion of privacy in the 'age of communications overload' is absolutely meaningless. "

"Frankly, I would rather the government having my personal details "

That is your choice. I choose to avoid using 'fly-buys' or similar schemes. I can't avoid the government intrusion as my 'cooperation' is mandated by law. If you can't see the fundamental difference between choice and compulsion then we'll have to disagree.

Thelma T:

15 Mar 2016 4:58:50pm

@Demac,

Your post shows considerable naivety about the about the privacy issues. The problem is; - You no longer can 'choose' whether to provide personal information or not; If you have ever had any loans; If you ever used credit card; If you ever used mobile telephone; If you ever paid any utility bill etc.

That is perhaps why you don't understand what Philip N is talking about. You no longer have a choice. Your personal details are collected by so many private companies/institution and sold by many for a small fee. These private personal data collection agencies have far more extensive personal details about each one of us than the government would ever consider asking for. That is the fact that should be understood.

What Philip N is talking about would be that Chris and other 'Civil Libertarians' are picking on the lesser of the two evils, while absolutely being quiet about the real threat to the privacy, civil liberties and individual freedom. Your post shows that many people still do not understand that fact.

Demac:

Thanks for the lecture Thelma but I've worked with and researched computers and information technology for the last 30 years. I've also been online since the early 1990s. I have some idea of what goes on in the data mines.

" These private personal data collection agencies have far more extensive personal details about each one of us"

I accept that data collation agencies know that I own a house, have a phone, and an ISP but they do not know what I use those services for. It is not all that hard to cut the links that tie various data points together or avoid putting significant information online. Online tools can also help and protect you, it cuts both ways.

"Your post shows that many people still do not understand that fact."

And you do not understand the fundamental difference between the annoyance of attempted intrusions by predatory commerce versus the government deploying the force of law to compel me to reveal personal information against my will.

Would you object if the police could arrest you without suspicion and compel you to recall and confess any and all offenses you may have committed? Why not? After all, if you aren't a criminal then you have nothing to fear.

Thelma T:

15 Mar 2016 8:44:31pm

"...fundamental difference between the annoyance of attempted intrusions by predatory commerce versus the government deploying the force of law to compel me to reveal personal information against my will..."

In both cases information can be used against you. The information about you held by private companies are not just an '...annoyance of attempted intrusions..' they can affect so many facets of your life; your credit rating being one of them.

True, the government can compel you to provide some basic information. On the other hand we are all giving freely far more details about ourselves to various commercial and online organizations. Believe me, the information we provide freely is far more extensive and far more dangerous.

I worked for a government agency and am aware of numerous constraints placed on using any personal information. I also understand the paranoia by many people about providing any information to the government, while placing all their details including the most intimate personal details and photographs, for the whole world to see, on Facebook. Photos, placed on the Facebook, from the overseas travel , are like an invitation card to the local burglars.

Yes, the information we provide freely are often far more dangerous. Why then we are obsessed with information we provide to the government and show absolutely no concerns or provide no public education about the dangers of providing personal information to various commercial and online organizations?

Glenn:

15 Mar 2016 5:21:14pm

"Frankly, I would rather the government having my personal details where I have some control of its use that having every detail of my private life being sold to anyone for a small fee - of which I have no control."

It isn't either/or though, is it? You don't get a choice between the government getting your information or private companies getting it. They both get it.

Timothy T:

15 Mar 2016 7:59:44pm

"...It isn't either/or though, is it? You don't get a choice between the government getting your information or private companies getting it. They both get it..."

How true, Glen. My question would be; Why then are we concerned ONLY with the information held by the government and not by everyone else? Why wouldn't people like Chris Berg write something about the increased abuse of privacy by just about every retailer, financial institutions, credit agencies, telecommunications and IP companies etc. including the companies whose businesses are based exclusively on collating and selling private, personal information?!

liz k:

hassa:

15 Mar 2016 4:58:13pm

Gee Whiz,I have read many blogs on this post and can only assume there are many people with something to hide , or many people that think people power is no longer an option to determine what we want or don't want in this country.

No wonder why depression is becoming one of our major health issues when people worry about crap like this , when climate is far more important to our existence.

Glenn:

Give me a spell. Do you have curtains in your house? Do you ever draw them? If so, why? Are you doing something illegal in there? What have you got to hide?

You don't have to be doing something nefarious to value your privacy. You wouldn't show your bank statement to a random person on the train, so why should that random person have access to it just because he/she is employed by the government?

hassa:

Glenn:

15 Mar 2016 7:05:37pm

I never claimed to be important, did I, champion? Point out to me where I did so.

Is it your view that only important people deserve privacy? OK - next time you get a bank statement, or an x-ray, or a medical report, I guess you will be happy to tape it to a lamp post in the main drag, rather than keep it in your house.

David Kay:

15 Mar 2016 5:32:00pm

Well, that's a census I'll be refusing to complete. If enough people just said no, they'd have to change it. For a start, mass civil disobedience freaks out governments focused on nothing but the next election. Watch them wet their pants if that happened. The only problem I can see is Peter Dutton would be peddling one of his ridiculous, pompous, self-aggrandised lectures very single day, and I'm not sure it's worth it.

Pragmatic:

15 Mar 2016 6:47:45pm

Just a thought, if there's a census this year, can't we just (change the law and) ask the country's view on same sex marriage at the same time and save having the plebiscite which they say is going to cost millions....???

Thelma T:

15 Mar 2016 8:11:52pm

Not as' pragmatic' as you would like to be.

Plebiscites could not be conducted without a proper democratic process including the public debate, with the aim that everyone is properly informed about the relevant issues. The process costs 'a bit' more than a question on the census, however, democracy is never cheap.

Earth Waratah:

I see only big problems stemming from the removal of privacy and those who see it as no bid deal, should look very closely at how despotic Governments have done with such information.

No Government should have a list of whose which religion, sexuality, our political belief systems and other important details and now that we have Government after Government making it a criminal act to rally against any company paying bribes to ruling political parties to control their policies, it is clear that such politicians would hurt people based on who they are. For example, they support the rape of young children because they're Muslim as does majority of the Australian nation.

Australia a fascist nation as it is already and we are a nation where we want people to burn for being 'different's us.

Only big trouble can come from this, including people just lying about themselves so the Government doesn't know.

anurse:

15 Mar 2016 7:30:19pm

I worked at a place once, where it was (suddenly and overnight), mandatory for the staff to complete the new HR department "staff record forms".300 nurses all with the same name, age, marital status and qualifications.Sabotage, the weapon of the powerless.

Big M:

15 Mar 2016 10:32:44pm

I worked in a hospital where each staff member had to fill in an anonymous survey, yet each document had a unique identifier which correlated with a number on a list. All surveys were done with the top corner cut out!

DD Ball:

Regionalgranny:

15 Mar 2016 7:58:25pm

Truth be told, it usually is not told on Census forms.

I would like a dollar for everyone I have spoken with who has told me that there are certain questions on Census forms that they never answer accurately. The reasons are many and varied from the totally irrational to those carefully thought through.

Introducing the compulsory keeping of identification of the person filling out the forms will only increase this non factual data.

Deekay:

15 Mar 2016 8:35:44pm

The census is clearly past it's use by date. The information it collects is almost certainly available in any number of other databases. Does anyone believe the rubbish about building schools and roads? Schools get built when existing ones are so overcrowded that it becomes necessary. Roads get built when a private construction company lobbys hard enough. It'll be the proverbial cold day when I fill it in.

Connie41:

15 Mar 2016 9:03:19pm

The likelihood that this new retention of names on the census documents really does look as if it will result in a less accurate census. The number of people here who say that they will protect their privacy by omitting, or giving false answers should give the ABS cause to rethink this move. The census is only as good as the accuracy of the responses. It would be silly to discourage people from answering accurately.

rob:

15 Mar 2016 9:54:47pm

we have Metadata laws now, every government agency, including local councils now have access to it, we have no privacy in Australia any more, the info they get from the census will not tell them anything new they cant already get from all our email, internet and phone data.

unserfdom:

About the same off the public radar time that the Australian Tax Office announced that about 580 companies with huge sales paid no tax, and provided a list.

Tried to raise this on ABC forums two times and twice rejected by the ABC censors.

We have lost OUR ABC. As well as OUR privacy.

Schools give Internet safety training to children once in a while. They then completely undermine it by directing students to log into foreign websites like Mathletics and Edmodo using their full names! All the while NSW DEC Privacy Code Section 17(2) forbids, by law, release of student private information outside jurisdiction of NSW. No parental consent obtained either!

Children, tracked from birth, by OUR government, for the benefit of foreign business.

Definition of Facism anyone?

P.S. ABC - You should publish how many comments are rejected for the sake of transparency.

little tomato:

15 Mar 2016 10:05:51pm

Name an instance in history when information gathered by the governing body (insert whatever body there, democratic, republic, dictatorship, etc) has been used for the sole purposes of the public (without intrusion) betterment as opposed to the betterment of a select few?

Esteban:

15 Mar 2016 10:08:21pm

The government doesn't need our names on the Census. It doesn't matter whether "they already have them" or not. They didn't require these details for the Census before, nor do they require them now. This is about control. Why would one give them a single thing more than they actually need? Why would one make ANYTHING easier for government? These are the people (on both sides) who constantly make deals behind our back with vested interests. Surely, they have done nothing to earn our trust. Why give an inch?

Diane:

15 Mar 2016 10:14:39pm

Keep in mind also that they ask some very intrusive questions, including medical. In the main survey that everyone gets, there's a non-optional question about disability. That in itself in sensitive information, especially for people with hidden disabilities.

But then, on top of the main census, they have an additional health one given to a small number of randomly selected households, which is also mandatory to complete. That survey comes with the option of having blood samples taken, which is the only voluntary part of the survey. The questionnaire is compulsory.

A government that thinks it has the right to demand medical information is a government that doesn't know its place.

Bob G:

15 Mar 2016 10:17:09pm

If you have no skeletons in the closet, no illegal dealings and generally nothing else to hide I really cant see how a census should or could be a problem for anyone.Many organizations, banks, finance groups, insurers, clubs etc., may well have more of our private details than we would like to think, which may have unscrupulously passed on to others for monetary gain. Ever wondered how those Tele Marketing people got your unlisted phone number, how a digital social media sends you a list of suggested contacts and often some you have not seen or heard of in decades. Anonymity is a long time GONE.

little tomato:

15 Mar 2016 10:21:50pm

All those suggesting what is the fuss? We offer so much information already via this that and the other.

That doesn't make it okay, that's like saying if he/she does so can I

The major problem the population of this country is apathy. I stated this years ago when the majority of the country felt Howard was correct to 'INVADE' another country. We follow the leader. We feel in a way detracted from the rest of the world (distance) yet at the same time we are fed 'FEAR' by our government (just like those in the good ol' USA) that all the baddies (to use an Abbott word) are just around the corner so we have to reduce YOUR freedom (to keep your freedom) and we need all the information we can about you (so as to protect your privacy).

little tomato:

15 Mar 2016 10:27:18pm

Am I complying with ABS if I provide true information but put no spaces between the words or... put a space between each letter instead between the words or.... I put the words in with the sentence backwards, etc?

Aragond:

15 Mar 2016 10:37:04pm

>Census to collect and permanently record aaaaaaall my census answers against my name in digital format for easy access and "enable government planners to do more rigorous studies of social trends">News today that the ABS is reporting a 90% failure rate in the censusNah, truth is that most blind sheep don't care. And they're banking on it.And I guess I'm not filling them in any more.

Mal:

15 Mar 2016 11:41:22pm

I'm not bothered that my information can get farmed out to business or anything else, I am law abiding, fairly uninteresting to anyone outside the family and I use ebay, paypal, woolworths, etc etc and I don't think there is anything earth-shattering in that knowledge being shared around.

ahoward:

Paul:

16 Mar 2016 6:45:09am

The ABS is mandated to give researchers the results of the census. I would assume this would include our "security" forces, and I would guess they would be interested in religion and ancestry, together with other profiling and personal identification content.

The easiest way of protesting is to fill the paper version in, but only in part. I would be prosecuted for not submitting the questionnaire, but not for not completing it. Duh, I wasn't sure or forgot.

aspidistra kid:

16 Mar 2016 7:12:10am

Those commentators who have identified commercial interests as the greatest threat to privacy are on the money. The information that people regard as most intrusive is volunteered by them as part of commercial transactions or social media postings. The sad fact is, people, that unless you are plotting something evil or ripping off the revenue, Government just isn't interested in you. Sorry Mr Coochey, that includes you.

Whatever information has been collected via the census is safe. Why do you think scammers bother to adopt all sorts of backdoor, roundabout ways to steal your ID? If they could hack their way into Government systems, they would do it, but they can't.

As to Government's use of the information, this is probably the only valid objection to providing personal information. But until President Trump takes over this country and starts demanding proof of my whiteness, I won't worry.

Since the airing of the gut-wrenching documentary Leaving Neverland, many of us have wrestled with an uncomfortable, yet essential question: given everything we know, can we continue listening to Michael Jackson's music?